>>23790
>I have to agree that vidya to animu adaptions that don't try to tell the same tale and is some side story instead usually fare well.
Something I've wished that "Fantasy Anime" chart did was specify which game related works were adaptations, which were prequel/sequel, and which were standalone works based on/set within a given universe (the latter two as such not being adaptations and likely not suffering the same problems. Instead it just groups them all under "Adaptations". Also listing stuff like .hack//Roots under "trapped in the game" when the handling of .hack is rather different than most isekai by way of scale of actual entrapment and general inability of the trapped to explore. Hell, with Roots, Haseo isn't even trapped, and is more about his relations with his friends and subsequent grief and coping when one vanishes and another gets comaed.
Credit where it's due, Namco at least gave Abyss twenty six episodes to work with, but from what I remember even then it doesn't have time to bring up some smaller details that the game does to help things make more sense at points. Still, I get that Japan loves them some Abyss (whereas it seems much more love it or hate it here in the west), but it's struck me as a bit odd that that was the entry to get the full season/two cour length adaptation, with Phantasia (the game starting the series I'd think there ought to be some respect for with Namco) getting two hours of OVA that jump all over the place and only focus on major events. At least the English dub of the OVAs was better than the frankensteined GBA port of the game we got here, though I suppose that's not a hard feat. Also surprises me that Destiny never got an adaptation, as that one's a massive favorite to the Japanese fanbase from what I know of it.
First Strike is how I think vidya anime ought to be handled, really: show something new, something that both fans of the game/series in question as well as newcomers can enjoy. The latter can get into the source material if they like what they're seeing (as I suppose the intention of adaptations are in general), but it also gives existing fans of the source reason to actually watch as well, since it's (ideally) more worthwhile material for what they already like without covering the same ground. Though, it's best to still have a prequel or whatever have enough closure of its own that it could be taken as its own work by those that aren't fans yet, instead of leaving most of the answers to the game itself (I liked .hack//Sign, but that's one that left it to the games to answer most of the questions it raised). Also not to spoil parts of the game itself, which First Strike was pretty careful about.
>>23770
To be fair, it's probably much easier to secure funding for an adapted work, or at least one set within a given series, than it is for something original a studio wants to make. Though that's assuming the original work was popular enough ("popular" not necessarily meaning "good"). Admittedly it's one of the big issues I have with adaptations in general, being that they're usually just promotion of the original material, and can suffer a variety of issues due to that. The release format of most games and VNs, wherein the base work is released in a single go (barring DLC/extended versions/episodic games), does at least let them avoid the issue of an anime catching up to the current end of the source material and thus have less reason to go the "anime original ending" route (or worse, being outright dropped or ignoring the source material to make something more "reinterpretation" than "adaptation"), which is where I think light novel or manga to anime adaptations suffer a lot. But even anime for games and VNs still have the issues of the amount of screentime allotted, what to cover, and even cutting out grind/unimportant fights with mooks, may simply not have the time to develop the plot or character relationships or even development.