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.

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?

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? I

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.

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.

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 [slashdot.org]. Not that I'm implying that Hit and Run isn't derivative, just that, to my knowledge, it hasn't been sued yet.