Alternatively, games also pad those hours out by having to have a high number of combat encounters as that's what a lot of players want, most of which can easily be cut for a film so it doesn't run like Commando. Very few action games have a story that can't be told in a couple of hours, it's generally told in snippets in between killing off waves of enemies, or allowing the player the freedom to explore at their own pace. All of which are fun elements in a game, but a film doesn't need the protagonist to randomly climb the highest skyscraper, spend three hours trading junk, always go the wrong way to make sure they haven't missed anything, another six hours pursuing side quests and changing costumes, and defeating the same encounter against the same enemies several times.
Exactly. Outside of like Fury Road, a movie is going to have five-six action scenes at most. Storytelling in genres beyond narrative adventure, point & clicks, etc are tied to gameplay loops and the other aspects you mentioned. Translating those stories to film allows the freedom of not being locked to the player character, being able to edit and cross-cut between situations, being able to pace and evolve confrontations without being chained to mechanics or controls, and so on
it's not that games can't have great live-action films like comics. The formula just hasn't been cracked yet
and all the "because they're interactive / non-linear" counters makes no sense. Most of that time, that interactivity doesn't impact the actual story being told and most aren't told non-linearly. Movies don't need to capture the "interactivity"; they need to capture the emotion, intensity, and such that the interactivity is attempting to foster. It's the difference between comic book films thinking just recreating panels is enough versus the comic book films that capture the essence of the stories, characters, and fights
a lot of video game movies seem trapped in a "let's just stuff the runtime with references to that game you like" mindset
