244: The Tragedy of Alone in the Dark
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
At least they tried to make a game that wasn't the same crap copy pasted from another formula. It's nice to see innovation in work, it's just a shame it turned out to be total shit, but hey, maybe their next game, "In the dark with my friend" may learn and turn the ideas into working, fun mechanics, along with a cast of likeable, well at least sensible, NPCs
The demo was as far as I got.
It got me in, and then let me down... strange for a demo to mirror a game so succinctly.
It got me in, and then let me down... strange for a demo to mirror a game so succinctly.
i agree the fire physics are good but far cry 2 was a unique game for use of fire as an attack stratagy and therefore is more amazing than this game
Interesting read, but I thought that the point you made towards the end:
"An average developer might say to themselves, "We don't need to put all that in because there's no reason to do it." A better developer would say, "Let's put it in anyway and let the players come up with reasons.""
went against one of your main criticisms of Fable 2:
"You CAN, but why would you want to?"
I personally agree with the latter, so I'm curious as to what makes a difference when it comes to the cars in AITD. (I have not played AITD)
"An average developer might say to themselves, "We don't need to put all that in because there's no reason to do it." A better developer would say, "Let's put it in anyway and let the players come up with reasons.""
went against one of your main criticisms of Fable 2:
"You CAN, but why would you want to?"
I personally agree with the latter, so I'm curious as to what makes a difference when it comes to the cars in AITD. (I have not played AITD)
I like how he didn't swear all that much. I counted only 1. It was good cos it seemed as an author he distanced himself from his "Zero Punctuation" persona.
I understand on the "almost great" thing.
I felt that way about the Endwar multiplayer. How it could have worked; all of your matches matter, winning or losing ground for you faction, trying to win the war. Your units also develop and improve with time becoming veterans from game to game. You don't throw your troops away as you do so often in other RTS games, you want them to live to fight the next battle. Equally this meant it really hurt the other guy when you killed one of his units as opposed to disabling it. Air striking evac helicopters being quite spiteful.
In the end the connection problems were frustrating, there was no way to co-ordinate gaining ground with other players, you had no idea how many battles had happened or where on that day. If there have been 2600 battles at JFK airbase then spending all day battling there won't swing the result.
Winning airbases to provide air support etc. seems good in theory but all it meant was that people wouldn't play on maps where they had no support. All the Americans waiting to get a game on "their map", all the russians doing the same on their map.
Then there were the times when battles go back and forth for days so you are stuck on the same maps until something changes.
I'm hoping there will be a sequel now they have trialed it and seen what does and does not work.
I felt that way about the Endwar multiplayer. How it could have worked; all of your matches matter, winning or losing ground for you faction, trying to win the war. Your units also develop and improve with time becoming veterans from game to game. You don't throw your troops away as you do so often in other RTS games, you want them to live to fight the next battle. Equally this meant it really hurt the other guy when you killed one of his units as opposed to disabling it. Air striking evac helicopters being quite spiteful.
In the end the connection problems were frustrating, there was no way to co-ordinate gaining ground with other players, you had no idea how many battles had happened or where on that day. If there have been 2600 battles at JFK airbase then spending all day battling there won't swing the result.
Winning airbases to provide air support etc. seems good in theory but all it meant was that people wouldn't play on maps where they had no support. All the Americans waiting to get a game on "their map", all the russians doing the same on their map.
Then there were the times when battles go back and forth for days so you are stuck on the same maps until something changes.
I'm hoping there will be a sequel now they have trialed it and seen what does and does not work.
well said that man. some bloke called herbert mellville said "it is better to fail in originality than succeed in imitation" says so in my diary. The driving is seriously bad i agree but you could argue that it introduces the element of luck into the mix which is the surely the biggest thing separating heroes from the characters who meet grizzly demises along the wayside. speaking of which, hasn't john mclane had his nine lives many times over?
I agree, it could've been great.
In fact, I hope there's a PC version and some fans are modding it fervently right at this very moment.
Or, baring that, that a new set of just as ambitious, but slightly more practical, developers make another Alone In The Dark game with just as much potential but with all of it actually there and used.
In fact, I hope there's a PC version and some fans are modding it fervently right at this very moment.
Or, baring that, that a new set of just as ambitious, but slightly more practical, developers make another Alone In The Dark game with just as much potential but with all of it actually there and used.
As I read this, I started thinking to myself that all of this sounds familiar. A game that was trying to be innovative and was full of great ideas, yet did everything so poorly that it ended up being so bad that it was almost good. All I had to do was take one quick look at my PC game collection to realize I was thinking of Jurassic Park: Trespasser.
I think Trespasser and Alone in the Dark have a lot in common. Both tried to be innovative, both tried behave realisticly, both of them were hyped up enormously, and of course both of them failed miserably. There isn't a single thing in Trespasser that isn't broken, but you can always see the potential seeping out of there. Just think about it, a survival-horror FPS set on an island full of dinosaurs, where just about any object can be used as a tool or weapon? On top of that, it was supposed to have realistic physics, which was an even bigger deal back in 1997. It sounds awesome on paper.
But of course, Dreamworks insisted that the game should come out with the Lost World movie, which means things had to be rushed and ideas had to be dropped. The result was a colossal failure in every way possible. But even so, you can see the groundwork for what they originally intended, and as you play it you can't help but think of how awesome it would have been if the game had been made right. Such a shame.
I think Trespasser and Alone in the Dark have a lot in common. Both tried to be innovative, both tried behave realisticly, both of them were hyped up enormously, and of course both of them failed miserably. There isn't a single thing in Trespasser that isn't broken, but you can always see the potential seeping out of there. Just think about it, a survival-horror FPS set on an island full of dinosaurs, where just about any object can be used as a tool or weapon? On top of that, it was supposed to have realistic physics, which was an even bigger deal back in 1997. It sounds awesome on paper.
But of course, Dreamworks insisted that the game should come out with the Lost World movie, which means things had to be rushed and ideas had to be dropped. The result was a colossal failure in every way possible. But even so, you can see the groundwork for what they originally intended, and as you play it you can't help but think of how awesome it would have been if the game had been made right. Such a shame.
What i liked was that every car-model is hacked the same, so the red one had a different wiring, and the policecar and so on. That meant an experienced player would hop into a car and hack it in no time, while an inexperienced player would fumble around with the wiring and sound the horn, or turn on the lights before hitting the right one, a moment that almost always unnerved me, because i never cared to check if nearby monsters react to the horn or lights suddenly turning on (and if you come within a mile of them, they knew you where there anyway<.<).
So the Game had it´s moments...sure...i remember the first levels being totally taken away by the gameplay and i was astounded enough to save an fumble around with my inventory to see what cool gadjets i´d come up with, and how many things i can smash and light up aflame.
Also the detail that in the Trash, you find almost empty aerosol hands, empty bottles and stuff, and in cardboards and lockers, you´d find full stuff.
I was laughing when i found a full bottle of Jacky D´s in a Policecar.
But after it took to Central Park, it all went downhill. I ran out of ammo pretty fast because at some points, the Central Park BOMBARDS you with enemies, and you need to hit the itty bitty lines on their bodys with flamable bullets to actually do something (especialy the big ones)...
I like games were the weakpoint is a big bulb on their torso, called HEAD.
Also the Black Mass was a cool idea, yet it was badly made. The Glowsticks pretty much only worked when thrown into (great you could pack 7 of them in one "pocket" so you really had enough) and the Flashlight was outright useless...so i usually used flaming chairs or tablelegs when possible.
And also, if it was a linear game, i bet it would have been much better recieved.
So the Game had it´s moments...sure...i remember the first levels being totally taken away by the gameplay and i was astounded enough to save an fumble around with my inventory to see what cool gadjets i´d come up with, and how many things i can smash and light up aflame.
Also the detail that in the Trash, you find almost empty aerosol hands, empty bottles and stuff, and in cardboards and lockers, you´d find full stuff.
I was laughing when i found a full bottle of Jacky D´s in a Policecar.
But after it took to Central Park, it all went downhill. I ran out of ammo pretty fast because at some points, the Central Park BOMBARDS you with enemies, and you need to hit the itty bitty lines on their bodys with flamable bullets to actually do something (especialy the big ones)...
I like games were the weakpoint is a big bulb on their torso, called HEAD.
Also the Black Mass was a cool idea, yet it was badly made. The Glowsticks pretty much only worked when thrown into (great you could pack 7 of them in one "pocket" so you really had enough) and the Flashlight was outright useless...so i usually used flaming chairs or tablelegs when possible.
And also, if it was a linear game, i bet it would have been much better recieved.
I don't think there's been a better way to describe that game.
For a change, I share the exact same opinion on that game that he did. Not to say that I worry about that stuff on a daily basis but I keep thinking, 'God damn it, Alone in the Dark could have been a GREAT game had they not let it release with so many many flaws.'
Also, that whole 'Chapter' system was an incredibly bad idea. One should have to play through the game, not be able to skip all the way to the end of it. ~_~
For a change, I share the exact same opinion on that game that he did. Not to say that I worry about that stuff on a daily basis but I keep thinking, 'God damn it, Alone in the Dark could have been a GREAT game had they not let it release with so many many flaws.'
Also, that whole 'Chapter' system was an incredibly bad idea. One should have to play through the game, not be able to skip all the way to the end of it. ~_~