Video Games is one of the newest art forms that humanity has created with the expressed purpose being a higher level of interactivity that the user engages with. This differs from a great majority of other media in which the user is a passive observer who typically does not have personal stakes in what is occuring (beyond their personal feelings for characters/outcomes). This makes video game adaptations incredibly difficult because it is not as simple as simply collecting the story and playing it on screen verbatim, though do keep in mind that is rarely done to begin with, but rather adaptations need to somehow collect the hours of work and effort the user has given the game. If you were to spend a whole year playing your favourite lego game with your brother, suffering through difficult levels, solving puzzles together and experiencing the highs and lows of the story provided, you feel a sense of attachment that adaptations simply cannot supply. This is not because they are worse but because they are different mediums with different strengths, and one can argue that the mechanics are just as much the source material as the story.

You do make a compelling argument, I mean certainly you can tell me in your example of the Sonic movie how it felt similar to the games right? I mean I haven't played much Sonic but I simply do not remember the part where there was a human character who was a buddy cop. What's also fascinating is that your two other arguments showcase the problem with the adaptations. For one, the Sonic redesign showed that they were attempting to redesign the character all together. Your example of this being good is the equivalent of me praising my waiter for bringing me the food I ordered rather than whatever he desired. As for the other two, isn't it strange that both examples you used were episodes where the story went out of its way to not cover the actual source material? This shows to me that your argument is not that adaptations can be true to it but rather can help expand it, which while similar are not the same Overall, these adaptations struggle and cannot fully be true to the source material. That isn't always a problem as you showed, for they can expand the material or show alternate ways for the story, similar to what the MCU is to Marvel Comics.

Your point would make sense if you do not play video games. Because what you call a muscle memory of pressing buttons is actually a lot more. Think of the animations of the characters, their various skills, the suspense of bosses or crowds, the set design, the flow of combat. These are all important and actually do impact it, and are the game's "internal truth". The game itself is the source material, the story is a part of it. The mechanics are vehicles through which the story reveals itself, so brushing past it is not honest to the games themselves. As for your cherry picking of games, I agree those are probably the easiest to adapt or try to get the closest to it precisely because they're the ones closest to the medium you want to translate it to. We're saying very similar things. In fact, I would argue you're agreeing with me. For you're saying that adaptations won't be the same, they won't be identical and cannot adapt every part of the game because it is impossible. But it (ideally) can get the broad strokes, expand certain things or reinterpret, while keeping passion and care for the characters/world/story. Because as you said, it isn't identical but the heart beats the same.

Right and again you don't seem to be truly arguing your point. For the sonic example, I truly do not know about if Sonic is lonely and if the Last of Us expansion is exactly what the game is about. These sound wonderful and poetic. But if you play Sonic 1 or any Sonic game for that matter, are you to look me in my eyes and say that you think the movie is actually true to it? Like you sat there saying: "Yeah it is true to the game for Sonic to be in New York with humans fighting"? I cannot believe it is true. Now if you are arguing that adaptations can carry the messaging or general themes of a story as you are stating then for sure. But it isn't to say they're actually faithful to the events that transpired, to the actual origins or lives of the characters. Lastly, I must say that the chef example you used could not be worse for yourself. Because if I ordered pepperoni pizza and I had to ask the chef to remake it entirely because he decided to make me a Hawaiian? I would not be praising him.

Right but by your interpretation you define truth as the heart, not by any metric that we could possibly actually measure. I could then argue that the 1993 Mario Movie is actually a true interpretation simply because they had heart and you could simply not argue it. It seems to me that you should provide a stated version for what "true" is so that we can accurately judge if it is possible, as you seem keen on not accepting a literal translation from games to movie.