Snippets: Brad Pitt in RDR movie?, Valve: Left 4 Dead originally a fairy game

Here’s a roundup of today’s news found elsewhere on the internet:

Microsoft outlines the future of Xbox Live (eurogamer) - Microsoft has reassured gamers that it remains committed to the hardcore as it broadens the appeal of the Xbox Live online platform.

The hardcore are "the best advocate" of the Xbox 360's movie, telly and music features, Xbox Live Studios boss Jerry Johnson told an audience at the Edinburgh Interactive Festival.

Move: Sony not expecting huge day one (eurogamer) - Sony expects motion controller PlayStation Move will succeed through strong word of mouth over time rather than huge sales at launch.

Valve: Left 4 Dead was originally a “flying fairy game” (vg247) - “There were a few failed starts to build Left 4 Dead,” Valve’s Doug Lombardi told PC Gamer.

“Well, there was the flying fairy game. Is that the one you were referring to?” Gabe Newell chimed in.

“It was so bad,” he said, “you wanted to ask yourself: ‘How could we make a game that was this bad?”

Report – Brad Pitt lined up for Red Dead Redemption movie (vg247) - According to website ShowbizSpy, Brad Pitt is being lined up for the main role of John Marston in a movie version of Red Dead Redemption.

Burger King Kinect listing pops up, may not be for 'an actual videogame' (Joystiq) - Burger King and Microsoft are back in the sack, following up their 2006 tryst with some new, Kinect-enabled treats. First off are the Kids Meal-powered Kinectimal plushies… Buy some arterial plaque-packed food, get a virtual toy for your virtual pet. Guys, this is it. The future. It's happening and this is what we have to show for it.

Lol, virtual toy, if i was kid, i'd be pissed off to no end.

Midi wrote: Report – Brad Pitt lined up for Red Dead Redemption movie (vg247) - According to website ShowbizSpy, Brad Pitt is being lined up for the main role of John Marston in a movie version of Red Dead Redemption.

I wouldnt put much credence in this.

While the whole thing stinks of wild rumour, the idea of a Red Dead movie is more plausible than Brad Pitt fronting it.

Agree though, does seem rather unlikely.

I hope not. John Marston is a bad ass. Any movie based on the RDR IP would need someone possessing a similar level of badassery. Someone who isn't Brad Pitt.

And while we're at it, not Tom Cruise either.

This comment on the source page cracked me up:

"Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred Bear skins. And I want my skins! And all y’all will git me one hundred bear skins, taken from the hides of one hundred dead Bears! Or you will die tryin’…."

AzumitH wrote: I hope not. John Marston is a bad ass. Any movie based on the RDR IP would need someone possessing a similar level of badassery. Someone who isn't Brad Pitt. And while we're at it, not Tom Cruise either.

It could only go to Josh Brolin to be honest.

Steppenwolf wrote: It could only go to Josh Brolin to be honest.

Well played. And Mr Wes Dickens?

Steppenwolf wrote: It could only go to Josh Brolin to be honest.

Very, very good.

Gwarden wrote: This comment on the source page cracked me up: "Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred Bear skins. And I want my skins! And all y’all will git me one hundred bear skins, taken from the hides of one hundred dead Bears! Or you will die tryin’…."

Ha!

can someone explain to me the purpose of movies based on video games? Aren't video games supposed to be the next step up from movies? Do they write books based on movies?

reb wrote: can someone explain to me the purpose of movies based on video games? Aren't video games supposed to be the next step up from movies?

I strongly disagree with this. For now, many games desperately try to ape other mediums - film in particular. Videogames are a young medium trying to carve out their own niche within the mediascape - they won't do that by continuing to mimic their elders.

reb wrote: Do they write books based on movies?

Often - it's just that they're horrible.

Agreed. Writing a story for a game is completely different to writing for a movie and vice versa.

metalmannz wrote: Agreed. Writing a story for a game is completely different to writing for a movie and vice versa.

but that wasn't really my point, if you're going to make a movie based on a video game what's the point? The story has been told in an interactive way which is surely more immersive (and this in my opinion in a league above movies (that said I guess you could argue that books are more immersive than movies too undermining my argument)) so why bother spending a large amount on a movie which is probably going to pull in less than the game has? Why not just spend that extra X million dollars on bettering the sequel of the game?

Hope that makes sense I'm a few friday beers down at the moment

quote wrote: Josh Brolin

Only if its No Country For Old Men Brolin and not Jonah Hex Brolin....Jonah Hex was terrible.

Sony sure don't sound confident towards the Move.

Still waiting on a bloody PC port.

I wouldn't be surprised if a PC port ran like shit, TBH. Likely produced by one of their inept B-studios like Rockstar Toronto or New England.

Toronto is known for the Bully and GTA4 PC ports. New England reportedly churned out the incredibly shitty Empire Earth 3 and the bugtastic 360 port of Bully.

Bioshock movie make now k go

EvaUnit02 wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if a PC port ran like shit, TBH. Likely produced by one of their inept B-studios like Rockstar Toronto or New England. Toronto is known for the Bully and GTA4 PC ports. New England reportedly churned out the incredibly shitty Empire Earth 3 and the bugtastic 360 port of Bully.

I completely agree.
While I would love to see what the game could look like on my rig running at full pretty, every Rockstar PC port has been just plain poor regarding performance (and dont get me started on the shadows on the release version of GTAIV)

Look at the performance difference between GTAIV and Mafia II for instance. Both games have a comparable level of detail and effects, but Mafia II runs considerably better even with additional effects, PhysX, AND antialiasing. I know comparing a game designed similtaniously for PCs and Consoles with one designed exclusively for Consoles is slightly unfair, but it still stands.

I would much prefer to play my PS3 version with no slowdown, or obvious problems (I even forget about the jaggies after a while on the PS3 version), than a PC version with framerate issues and minor technical glitches regardless of how pretty it might look. Although modability would be awesome.

Midi wrote: Move: Sony not expecting huge day one (eurogamer) - Sony expects motion controller PlayStation Move will succeed through strong word of mouth over time rather than huge sales at launch.

Translation: Pre orders are disappointingly low.

cryocore wrote: While I would love to see what the game could look like on my rig running at full pretty, every Rockstar PC port has been just plain poor regarding performance

GTA:San Andreas wants a word.

Worst wrote: GTA:San Andreas wants a word.

I would expect a port that ancient to run like a hot knife through butter on recent gen hardware, thus it would be hard to accurately gauge the optimisation at this point.

Even at its point of release Rockstar's version of Renderware used for the PS2 GTA's was very long in tooth, they had been building upon the base since 2000/2001 after all. If you want a modern equivalent example, the Call of Duty engine is great one. Since CoD2 we've had at least 5 games that have used the same engine, with at least another in the works (Black Ops).

I'm playing through GTA 4 atm on PC

Ain't that bad but it should be running much better for what it is

EvaUnit02 wrote: I would expect a port that ancient to run like a hot knife through butter on recent gen hardware, thus it would be hard to accurately gauge the optimisation at this point.

/shrug I ran it on entry-level hardware when it came out and I just couldn't go back to the console. Not enough draw distance really.