Is this like 9? Because it looks kind of like 9.

Eh, that's not a current Hollywood trend, it's just business as usual. Sticking to the source has always been rare for film adaptations.

Which would you pick? Would you pick Runaway Monkey? Because I wouldn't pick it either.

No idea what Runaway Monkey is.

My first thought was Deponia, but that wouldn't really work unless it would be the whole trilogy, and anyway I dread the possible alterations to that story. Night of the Rabbit would work better. I'd love to see it as stop motion animation like Coraline.

I also think Emerald City Confidential could make for a fantastic movie, but I feel like no one other than me even remembers that game. Why it isn't on GOG is beyond me.

I'd like to see that here too. The reason it isn't is because despite being developed by Wadjet Eye it was the only game not self-published. It was published by PlayFirst - a flash game publisher who created DinerDash and were only active on PC pre-2010. After this they lost interest and went "full mobile", were acquired by Glu Mobile in 2014 and that in turn was acquired by EA in 2021. The very same EA which has no games on GOG newer than 2009 (Dragon Age Origins, Mirrors Edge and The Saboteur), so...

Except that's not always the case. There have been adaptations that have mostly stuck to the book they were based on. By mostly, I do mean that the characters are fundamentally still the same people with the same desires/motivations, and the core plot is intact.

Examples of movies that have a reputation for being mostly faithful to their source material include: The Princess Bride, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (as in the 1st movie only), Misery, Fight Club, No Country for Old Men, The Godfather, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Silence of the Lambs, The Prestige, Jurassic Park, The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me (based on "The Body"), and Psycho.

I think that too many film makers think that they're going to make the next The Shining, which is an incredibly good movie if you ignore the fact that the book's author hates the adaptation because that much of it has been changed. Too many times, movie adaptations of books as a whole end up being on the level of Littlefinger giving Sansa to the Boltons in Game of Thrones - equally nonsensical and will only make people familiar with the source material hate the adaptation.

About half those films are seriously different from the source material unless you read the "book of the film!" or the "now a major motion picture!" version.

As relates to this movie idea, there were no humans in the game, so having humans on the poster is indeed counter to the setting of the game world. There also weren't androids, so assuming this movie has people in it, this would either be a prequel to the game setting, or a retcon where a pack of humans DID survive somehow.

Most stories tend to have at least a few core aspects to their setting which makes them unique, so claiming to tell a story in that setting that violates one of those core aspects, really makes the whole thing questionable.

"lets do a star wars movie where jedi don't exist."
"lets do a superhero movie where nobody has powers."
"lets do a romance where nobody falls in love."

Isn't that Batman? Unless having a lot of money counts as a superpower.