Scarface Videogame Gets First Screens, Details

Thanks to Reuters/Hollywood Reporter for its brief story mentioning the "violent 1983 gangland saga" Scarface is being turned into a videogame, courtesy Vivendi Universal. Apparently, "The third-person shooter, developed by [Simpsons Hit & Run developers] Radical Games with a storyline from David McKenna ('Get Carter [remake],' 'S.W.A.T.'), is scheduled to ship in fall 2005." In addition, 1UP/EGM has a sneak peek at screenshots, revealing a visual style not a million miles removed from a big-selling franchise already significantly inspired by Scarface.

Comments

You know what MOB game I'd love to play?

[PreDefined]

A hybrid RPG/Action/Adventure version of Once Upon A Time In America.

Scarface Videogame.

[ductonius]

GTA: Vice City?

Re:Scarface Videogame.

[oldManSquad]

GTA: Vice City?

noooo really??? you do know the blue lines are for clicking don't you?

Wow.

[delus10n0]

Worst. Screen. Shots. Ever.

Why even bother making this game?

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than wannabe-gangster rappers like Ludacris and all those dipshits, who is going to care? The rest of the world got over Scarface like... two decades ago. And if you're going to make the game, at least make it look more up to date! The screenshots make it look like GTA-2 had better graphics and that's several years old. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING.

oh boy more remakes!

[Bishop]

Just when you started getting bored of all the movie remakes, now Hollywood is pillaging older movies for games. I think part of the problem is the current copyright craziness. It is easy and low risk to buy solid rights to an old movie. The higher risk alternative is to develop an idependant game or movie and get sued out of existance, because the game or movie might slightly resemble some old movie that nobody but the lawyers care about.

Re:oh boy more remakes!

[servognome]

I think part of the problem is the current copyright craziness. It is easy and low risk to buy solid rights to an old movie
That's a big stretch. The reason you go with a well known title or franchise is because of name recognition. You say "Scarface" and people are excited just because of familiarity with the movie. Just stamping Matrix on "Enter the Matrix" probably got it 1million+ copies sold.
It's difficult to show copyright infringement in entertainment. Is Halo really that different from Doom? Is Age of Empires really that different from Command & Conquer? Galaga different from Space Invaders? Basically just change the graphics a little and tweak some of the rules.
The risk isn't getting sued because of copyright infringement, the risk is that it is much harder to develop a brand name from scratch. Its easier to make a movie or games with an existing brand (with associated characters and setting), than to try and develop new brand, and new characters and settings that people will buy into.
Beyond good & evil and System Shock were well regarded games but failed with regards to sales, while Driv3r and crappy Star Wars games sell much better just on name alone
If you are a publishing company would you rather publish a Star Trek, Star Wars, Terminator, or Matrix title that guarantees you 1million+ copies sold, or pray that an brand new game title becomes popular?

Re:oh boy more remakes!

[eddy]

>It's difficult to show copyright infringement in entertainment.

Not if there's actual infringement, it's not. It's really hard if you're imagining infringement, or trying to exercise rights you don't have; like for instance "I've copyrighted the idea of a RTS!"

>Is Age of Empires really that different from Command & Conquer?

Dude, they're completely different games. You might as well say "is one ocean painting really that different from any other?". I'm not sure what that'd get you, really. The mechanics of the game doesn't even seem relevant as far as copyrights go.

Re:oh boy more remakes!

[servognome]

Dude, they're completely different games.
Gather resources, create buildings, pump out troops, zerg rush, win. Its the essentially the same game, just different graphics and "plot"
I was illustrating how easy it is to create an "original" game, just like you said because the mechanics can be the same just with different window dressing.
The original poster was using the tinfoil hat argument that we are seeing remakes because of copyright infringment. My counter to the argument was that you can create an "original" game by just changing some graphics and gave some examples where the play style is similar to an existing game, with only some minor gameplay and graphical differences.
Copyright isn't something that comes into play when creating new games, unless the developer is stupid and does something blatantly obvious.

What is it with /. articles?

[vigilology]

This article wasn't here half an hour ago. I mean there was nothing between 'IT: How Secure is Windows Firewall?' and 'Science: Todd Need[ed] a Liver'. Now all of a sudden this appears somewhere between the last articles that I already read, and I almost missed it. I've noticed this happen before. What's up?

Re:What is it with /. articles?

[The Islamic Fundamen]

It got slashdotted idiot

Whats the point then

[The Islamic Fundamen]

If you dont get to play as Tony? I think this is just a cheap, uncreative way to cash in on a liscence.

Hmm

[cluke]

So, they've go the script guy from Get Carter (remake) (crappy) and SWAT, and the coders of Simpson's Hit and Run - a game so derivative it actually got sued, and that takes some doing in this day and age.
With a pedigree like that, we are in for a treat!!

Re:Hmm

[Maggot75]

You know, it wasn't Hit and Run that got sued, it was Road Rage. Not that I'm implying that Hit and Run isn't derivative, just that, to my knowledge, it hasn't been sued yet.