You mean "BRIAN BLESSED starring as everyone."...

FTFY ;D

LOL! I would agree, if it wasn't for Magnolia. But that's probably because I love the movie, and am willing to forgive Tom Cruise being a part of it. Though, being as objective as I can be, I do think he did a great work in that film. Other than Magnolia, I can't think of any other movie in which I liked him... he wasn't too bad in Minority Report, or so people keep telling me, but I just can't stand that movie for the way it murdered one of Philip K. Dick's greatest short stories.

Benedict Cumberbatch or David Tennant?

EDWARD NORTON!

He's a brilliant actor, one of my favourites. The rest is too high profile and typical hollywood icons that would make it "too mainstream", at least out of those suggested in the article.

The game is not out and they are already thinking about possibly making a movie?

Like how Elmofongo said earlier, Jim Sterling, on his The Escapist JimQuisition, addressed this same issue. The thing is, big studios seem to be really full of themselves. It's true that Ubisoft has been presenting us, gamers, with some of the best games in recent times, but that doesn't entitle them to be the arrogant smugs they are.

They milk their cows dry. There *has* to be an Assassin´s Creed per year. As much Splinter Cells as can possibly be. And so on. Big studios are no longer focused on making a game that's just a single, unique, great experience. If a game is good, we'll turn it into a franchise. Fans are as much to blame as developers and publishers; how many times have we asked for sequels, "just so we can return to that game world", when a title offers closure? Way too many times, I say. Some games don't need sequels. They have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and that's it. If we want to revisit the game world, if we stand by our argument that video games are a form of art, like with any good book or good music album, all we have to do is play that game again. This is why I believe the future of video gaming, as things stand, lies with indie developers. At least those guys aren't afraid to take chances in order to deliver great story, great gameplay and great experiences, rather than the big studio approach of "AAA graphics and decreased difficulty for a more fluid experience". I want a game to be playable, not just watchable. What's Watch Dogs, if not an update of the Assassin's Creed formula? When we think about it, it's just what it is. A techno-Assassin's Creed. They play it safe, embellish the game graphically, add a few technological gadgets and, voilá, a new cow to milk until it's dying of exploitation.

I, too, am intrigued and excited about Watch Dogs, but when Ubisoft claims they will make a series out of it, I sure feel a bit let down. This game had everything to be the next big stand-alone thing. The game to be the actual "full game experience", again. But, no, they have to make it into a series of games, because that's just how the video game business/industry goes.

Except that it was Doom in name only (Hell invading Mars), the story was Resident Evil in space (an outbreak of a virus that mutated people). Also the cinema version hacked the very cool FPS scene to shreds because... fuck gamers and their wish to see something really cool that relates to the genre of game the movie is (exceedingly loosely) based on. :P


As for the topic at hand; I don't know who Aiden is, I don't know a single thing about his personality, I don't know a single thing about the setting, I don't know a single thing about the plot, so I have no idea what actor could play him.

However since these are always the first things to go in a videogame movie I'll default to the obvious choice and pick PETER DINKLAGE. I think he'll make a GREAT first transgendered US President, which is no doubt what they'll turn this Aiden into for the movie.

Yes! Dude really doesn't get enough appreciation.