According to the trailer, this is all in game footage. It definately doesn't look pre-rendered, and holy shit it looks good. Untold Legends can suck it.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/704/704569p1.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGN
Printable View
According to the trailer, this is all in game footage. It definately doesn't look pre-rendered, and holy shit it looks good. Untold Legends can suck it.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/704/704569p1.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGN
Pretty impressive. Is this only PS3, or will we be seeing a 360 release as well? Its pretty amazing what we are seeing this generation, and I know it is said every generation, but how will games look even better.
I've always saidI was never a graphics whore, but it is so damn hard to not get excited by seeing really amazing looking graphics.
Silent Hill needs to take some of these new elements into consideration.
Holy shit that's some bad animation.
Wow. That video looked pretty good, and Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare was an amazing game on the Dreamcast. So, this game should be a day one purchase for me.
PS3, 360, and PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitan
Whenever I read NeoGAF now every thread about a new game they ask, "PS3 exclusive?". With the closeness in power of the systems, the great cost-benefit ratio to porting, the Capcom Resident Evil exclusivity debacle, and the looseness of exclusivity contracts in general, its safe to assume more games than ever will be multiplatform. Especially with games like Mercs 2, why would it go exclusive after selling huge on 2 platforms?
I agree, and that fact is going to postpone my purchasing of a PS3, unless something earth shattering is announced at E3. I couldn't wait to get to the next generation, but I really don't care whose platform I am standing on now that I am here. Although Rayman Raping Rabbits or whatever is starting to help me save $200 on taking a Wii, so I could use that to soften the PS3 blow.
Wise fwom yo gwave!
Bad news on the PS3 front. It seems the game has been delayed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotaku
This makes absolutely no sense.Quote:
Alone in the Dark for PS3 will be the same content as the 360 and PC versions but will still be "worth the wait."
That Limited Edition looks sexy.
this game looks pretty hot. both graphics and few of the gameplay features.
It does if you only own the PS3.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Now THAT doesn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass Joe
:lol: Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaoofNee
me thinks the delay is some because of them wanting to take extra time to clean it, and more because MGS4 is raping all PS3 game sales this month.
I picked up the 360 version of Alone in the Dark at gamestop today. I only had the chance to play it for about an hour, but I really like it so far...despite how TERRIBLE it is in quite a few areas. Really, I would only give it about a 7/10 so far but I like it for what it is.
This is definitely a game that everyone should rent before purchasing though, because every aspect of the game is very flawed. The graphics offer some very nice lighting and elemental effects, but some of the character models and environments are very "blah." The controls are also very befuddling. This is quite possibly the most poorly implemented and polarizing control scheme I've seen in a game since Gunvalkyrie on the Xbox. Its not that the controls are necessarily BAD, they are just overly complicated. The first problem is that the developers couldn't decide whether to make the game first person or third person, so you constantly have to switch between third and first person views and each button performs a different action depending on the view that you're in. So, I'm always finding myself getting crossed up trying to figure out which button executes the action I want to perform.
More examples of the overly complicated controls include:
- In order to simply make the character run, you must hold the L button AND press A. This means, if you want to run and jump, you must hold L AND A and then hit the X button to jump. This just isn't very comfortable on a 360 controller, and it feels sloppy. Why couldn't the developers make one of the 10+ buttons the run button?
- Melee combat is also odd. Instead of allowing you to easily swing a melee item with the quick press of a face button, the developers decided to go the Death By Degrees/Grabbed By the Ghoulies "flick the analogue stick" route with the melee combat. Usually, this control scheme is very unresponsive and inaccurate in every game that uses it, but they somehow found a way to make it suck even more. Instead of just swinging the stick in one direction to swing a melee item, you must swing the stick left AND then swing it back to the right to perform ONE MOTION. So, of course, melee combat becomes very frustrating and it seems unresponsive overall.
Negatives aside though, I have to admit that the developer did everything in their power to really impress the player. "Alone in the Dark" is a very cinematic experience with some truly thrilling gameplay moments thrown at the player one after another. There are also some very nice environmental puzzles that make the player take advantage of the games' physics, much like Half Life. Best of all though, is that the player can seemingly choose any way to tackle the game's obstacles. You can seemingly combine the majority of the items to create new items and there are several ways too to get around some of the enivronmental puzzles and the game's battles.
So far, it really surprises me that they took the time to make every other element of "Alone in the Dark" so impressive and then they dropped the ball with the control scheme. This major oversight is what will really hold "Alone in the Dark" back from being a game that will be embraced by the mainstream. Therefore, I would only recommend this to people who are big fans of the series, or serious game players who can look passed really glaring flaws. I honestly think a casual game player would give up on this game after the first 30 minutes or so. So, I'm going to predict that this will be a game you will see used at Gamestop very quickly and this will be in the $20 bargain bin within a month or two.
EDIT - Wow, I just saw the IGN review and they absolutely trashed this with a 3.5/10. I'll have to read through their review because most of the reviews I've read (including the IGN UK review) have been in the 7 range so far.
I wonder if the PC version will allow some of these control issues to be tweaked to where they aren't a problem.
Guess I'll find out when my copy gets here (hoping tomorrow).
nice writeup "magnifiedplaid"
Played this for a couple more hours tonight and I have a few more observations.
- First, apparently I was wrong about having to squeeze the L Trigger and press A to run. You only need to press the A button to run. I couldn't get the character to do that at the beginning though...so maybe I had to wait for the game's tutorial to introduce the run button. Either way though, having A to Run and X to jump is a minor annoyance.
- Control issues still pop up throughout the game though. For example, the ingame tutorial says to press A to turn on the flash light, and press A again to turn it off. Sometimes I'll be pressing A several times and the flashlight will not turn off...other times I barely press it and it turns off quickly. This is an issue since the flashlight uses up batteries. I notice that if I'm holding another item, like a gun or crow bar, while I carry the flashlight it is practically impossible to turn off the flashlight. So, I literally have to go into the inventory and put either the gun away or manually unequip the flashlight.......stupid shit like this really takes you out of the experience. Another minor quirk regarding the flashlight is that it seems to turn itself off if you jump or fall off a platform....which is a bad thing because you need light to fend off some of the "instant kill" enemies :(
- Suprisingly enough, the actual controls in the driving sequences are not as bad as the professional reviews indicate. If you played Test Drive Unlimited, you should be at home with the somewhat average vehicle control here. Instead the main problem, in the initial driving segement I played, is that it just feels glitchy and cheap. There are items constantly flying at the screen and the terrain is constantly changing in front of you (much like Excite Truck), but every time I barely scraped the edge of a wall my car would fly a hundred feet in the air...and it would result in an instantdeath. I had to retry the first driving segment about 15 times because of this. Frustrating to say the least.
- The game also seems to have an odd disconnect between chapters. It feels as if a different team worked on each chapter. By the time I got to chapter 3 they all of a sudden shoe horned in a map, psuedo health bar system, radar, PDA screen, and all this other random junk that should have been in the first two chapters. I kept wondering where the hell that stuff came from all of a sudden. Just very odd.
- Yet, the most frustrating aspect of this game is that there are some truly BRILLIANT moments buried under all the crap. During the first 5 or so hours that I've played, there have been some truly "holy shit" moments and some great gameplay innovations that I haven't seen in too many other games in this genre. Thus, I have a really bipolar reaction to this game. One minute the game seems awesome...and the next it really sucks...then it gets awesome again. Its easy to see why the review scores vary so wildly.
Basically, I think the 1up review put it best when they said "Alone in the Dark" feels "experimental." Its like no gameplay idea or concept was ever turned down in a development meeting. Every idea imaginable is thrown into the game. A few of the ideas work, and a lot of them don't. I seriously wonder what kind of random horse shit this game is going to throw at me next. I'm trying very hard to like this game, but its definitely fighting me every step of the way.
Awesome write up. This game just went from a 'buy' to a 'rent' for me. Hopefully the blockbuster by me has it, cause I would like to at least try it - at least for those brilliant bits you talk about. It's a shame the game isn't better, I really, REALLY wanted it to be good. But I've been wanting a good AITD ever since the second game botched up the series.Quote:
Originally Posted by magnifiedplaid
I'm getting towards the end of Chapter 4 now, and the further I get into the game the more I'm enjoying myself. I think a lof of people are going into this game with the mindset that its a Survival Action/Horror game, when it really feels more like a Survival ADVENTURE/Puzzle game. There is combat sprinkled throughout the game, but the emphasis of the combat seems to be in figuring out how to dispose of your enemies quickly. So, each battle becomes like a puzzle as you have to look around the environment and figure out how you can use the enivronment to kill the enemies.
"Alone In the Dark" is starting to remind me of "Illbleed", on the Dreamcast, because both games are very hooky/silly ADVENTURE HORROR games that are seemingly flawed from every angle....yet they offer just enough of the goods to make you want to keep playing to see what will happen next.
I also found a couple of errors in IGN's 3.9 review. The reviewer states, "you only have a single handgun throughout the entire game." Sorry if this is a very minor spoiler (I always forget what the spoiler tag is) BUT this is a positively false statement. You do pick up a freaking MAGNUM as the game goes along, which of course is quite a bit more powerful than the initial handgun. So, how can the reviewer state that there is only one gun in the entire game?
The reviewer also states, "Most of the time, you'll find the access to explosive items severely limited, which means the most effective and consistent way to kill monsters in Alone in the Dark is to touch them with burning chairs." Again, this seems a bit off to me because you can find materials needed to make explosive items/bulletts in every room. You just need to know how to combine items to make the explosives. The items that make explosives even respawn after you pick them up! Either the IGN reviewer was just playing the game wrong, or we are playing completely different games.
EDIT - Gametrailers.com has a really nice and in depth video review, of "Alone In the Dark," up now. Its the best break down of the game's positives and negatives I've seen so far. It's definitely worth a watch if you're still on the fence about playing this: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/35566.html
Score. Gamefly sent it yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by magnifiedplaid
Thanks for the impressions, guys.
I hated Illbleed with a passion. I never understood the love for that POS.
This game really ain't too bad. The controls have a bit of a learning curve to them, but I find them to be perfectly functional (default layout with 360 page). I'd like better control of the camera, but other than that, no big issues.
There are a lot of original ideas at work here, and it's really a very creative, fresh game, though by that same token it really feels alien to the series its supposedly a part of. It doesn't feel any more connected to Alone in the Dark than any other survival horror game ever. Not one scrap of Carnby's identity seems to be present, and the brooding amnesiac with a mysterious past is effectively a completely new character, even moreso than New Nightmare. There isn't so much as a nod or wink to fans of the old games.
I watched my friend play this for a while tonight and beat the first (are there more?) driving sequence for him. Playing that bit made me want to punch our hero, Tony Danza, in the face multiple times.
I agree with everything you say here. Even though the controls are a bit clunky, I got used to them after a bit. After completing the game today, I would actually give this about an 8/10. Its a fun adventure all the way through, and you really have to use your brain to solve some of the puzzles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
You're right that there doesn't seem to be much of a nod to fans of the old games. At the very least, the game does manage to keep an ADVENTURE game vibe going on most of the time by putting more emphasis on interacting with the environment and solving puzzles than fighting a ton of enemies. Also, there are still a few interesting surprises in the story that may catch your attention, for better or worse.
The one thing that completely soured my experience with "Alone in the Dark" was the endings. Seriously, I don't think a game's ending has bummed me out this much in a long time. I'm really interested in hearing what you think of the ending after you finish it. IMHO, it takes the series into a direction that I don't really care for.
haha...so your friend really sucked at the driving sequence? That first sequence took me about 10 tries to beat as well. It seemed to be a combination of me being awful at that part, and the game being slightly glitchy. There are a few more driving sequences like that, but the game is really much better when it lets you do some free roam driving in the cars (i.e. Grand Theft Auto)Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaoofNee
Hearing it compared to illbleed makes me want to play this badly.
You're dead to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingoffighters
No, I'm the one that beat it. My friend DID suck at it, though. Horribly. I know the cars are horribly sluggish, but he fishtailed what little of it he could do and kept crashing into things. I tried it about ten times myself and got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by magnifiedplaid
Also, SLIGHTLY glitchy? I'm surprised this thing survived playtesting! I kept getting caught on ledges and places where cars shouldn't go just by driving where I should have. Cement is NOT rubber, but this game seems to think so based on how I got bounced around.
Cripes.
Well, I finished this yesterday. I don't mind the endings, though the "good" ending really should have been longer than ten seconds and actually explained what the fuck just happened.
The controls are unbelievably clunky but you do get used to them. A lot depends on your preferred methods to solve problems. You'll have serious issues with the controls if you try to knock down enemies and then shoot them with fire bullets, but fewer if you try to just spray them with a makeshift flamethrower or throw molotov cocktails at them.
There are some great ideas at work with the freeroaming structure, but that roots section was a real pain. The half-dozen or so roots that required creative problem solving were great, but the rest were an exercise in tedium and only seemed to be present in order to make the player cover every last inch of Central Park.
I really can't say enough about the puzzle solving. It's great, and having to fashion weapons out of whatever is lying around really adds to the whole "survival" aspect of the game. The "horror" aspect is definitely present too, especially when you're desperately trying to hotwire a car before the giant zombie reaches you.
What isn't great is the pile of glitches. Trying to drive cars off of ramps is an exercise in repetitive frustration. Falling through the ground is an ignoble end. And attempting to use weapons in confined spaces is an absolute nightmare.
Still, I'm really forgiving to games that try to do something new, even if they don't quite manage it. Alone in the Dark reaches for the stars but doesn't make it. If it worked flawlessly, this would be a serious contender for best game ever. As it stands, it's a flawed gem that has many ideas I'm sure will appear in other titles. It's worth playing if you can put up with serious flaws for seriously brilliant ideas.
I agree with much of what you said in this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by bVork
I think, what bugged me about the endings wasn't so much that they were short, but that there wasn't much to differentiate between the "good" and "bad" endings. Despite all the games glitches and flaws, I found myself completely immersed in the game from beginning to end and I actually became semi-emotionally invested in Edward's quest. Therefore, the content of the endings totally bummed me out.
I actully didn't mind the evil roots section of the game. I found it as a great opportunity to finally explore central park a bit. Its just too bad that most of it had to be clumped towards the end of the game. I think the game would have benefitted from showing you the location of all the evil roots at the start so you could burn them throughout the course of the game.
I really hope that this sells well and Eden studios doesn't become too discouraged by the negative reviews. I think Eden studios could use this as a springboard to make a superb sequel if they fix some of the glitches....and if they're smart enough to leave out the "black slime" :)
See, I don't mind the bleakness of both endings. In fact, I'm glad this game had the balls to not include a truly happy ending.Quote:
Originally Posted by magnifiedplaid
I actully didn't mind the evil roots section of the game. I found it as a great opportunity to finally explore central park a bit. Its just too bad that most of it had to be clumped towards the end of the game. I think the game would have benefitted from showing you the location of all the evil roots at the start so you could burn them throughout the course of the game.
Atari has said that this is the last "big budget" game they'll do unless it sells well. I hope it does, for Eden's sake. Both Test Drive Unlimited and Alone in the Dark were very unique titles, and I don't want to see them forced to make casual games.Quote:
I really hope that this sells well and Eden studios doesn't become too discouraged by the negative reviews. I think Eden studios could use this as a springboard to make a superb sequel if they fix some of the glitches....and if they're smart enough to leave out the "black slime" :)
And the black slime was no real threat if you used emergency flares. The light that those give off is enough to keep slime far away from you and thus lets you walk through the pools unharmed.
Shit, remember the end of the original?Quote:
Originally Posted by bVork
Was the end of the original really bleak as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Only if you consider Goosebumps novel endings to be bleak. Carnby gets in a car and the driver turns around and his face is a skull.
Oh yeah, it was cheesy as hell (I love Carby jumping up and clicking his heels together too) but still, neither a happy nor especially satisfying ending.
LOL. I'm assuming that Carnby probaly didn't turn around and say "FUCK YOU anyways" :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bVork
This game is terrible. the end
only buy this if you're an idiot
I'm still waiting for the 360 demo but Frogacuda's TNL review makes it sound pretty good, and it seems to coincide with bVork's view of the game in many ways. I didn't follow this game closely so I just learned it's by Eden Games. That also makes me want to play it as their Rayman-ish PS2 game Kya was one of last gen's most underrated platformers.
It's a flawed game but I really have to say the good completely overwhelmed the bad for me. I think the bad reviews just don't understand what survival-horror is really about.
I just started this tonight after finishing R6 Vegas 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
So far the game is FUN. So far the control is FUCKING TERRIBLE. Seriously. Terrible. Fucking awful. Bad. Even the first person view is excruciatingly horrible. It's bad. BAD.
But, as some others stated, the game really is fun. Not really all that scary yet?, but the scenarios are exciting.
I like it so far. Dragging half-dead wall-crack-zombies into a burning car is awesome. Let's hope the awesome keeps up with the omgwtfsux control.
I don't think the controls suck any more than the average survival horror game. I think slow, clumsy characters are kind of a part of the genre. You're not supposed to feel powerful.
Like you do in RE4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Yeah, but that's why the best survival horror games are System Shock 2, Doom 3 etc.
I gave up on this game rather fast.
Doom 3 is FAR from "survival".Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I would fuck System Shocks hole though if that matters.
Games should create "survival horror" through stressful situations, fear of loss/death and appropriate atmosphere. Fearing the next time you have to bash in a door with a trashcan because you can not accurately position yourself to do so, despite your perceived proficiency with a game controller, is not what I desire in the genre.
Trashcans are not scary. Bashing in doors is not scary. Terrible controls, however, make all situations horrifying.
Despite this, I plan on playing this game later tonight :wtf:
RE4 isn't a survival horror game. I think because they released a solid third person shooter in the RE series people think survival horror game should be shooters from now on, but they aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyne
Uh... I dunno, I think pretty much every horror movie ever might disagree, as characters fumble with their keys to open a car door or try to break down a door... The horror genre is full of those moments because they're tense. And Alone in the Dark intentionally plays that up with moments like trying to hotwire a car while enemies are fighting to pull you out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Six
It does bear mentioning that if you're genuinely struggling to swing an object at a door you do kind of suck, but to act like clumsy moments fighting with a mundane task under pressure aren't a part of the horror genre is just silly.
I mean shit, did you ever actually play Resident Evil or the original Alone in the Dark? I hate to tell you this, but nimble control wasn't on the list of strong points.
I think we agree. Tense moments are good. Fumbling with whatever because you're scared is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
It's one thing to create a gameplay element that determines the amount of control you have over a character - the insanity meter in Eternal Darkness for example - if the normal, "sane" controls are acceptable. My complaint is that the camera and general movement are not intuitive and make tasks that should be easy, quite difficult. My first few experiences with door bashing were: too far left, wrong swinging motion, too far right, finally hit the door, wrong swinging motion, wrong swinging motion, hit the door again, too far right, etc.
Sure, I just finished Ranbow Six: Vegas 2 which controlls pretty well (as a FPS should) and maybe I'm spoiled at the moment, but the third person camera/control in AitD is silly. I don't mind being slow and weak, but at least let me move my character when I want to, in the direction I want to. And maybe I do still suck at the controls. Maybe it will get better. But the first experiences need to be better for most people to stick with it.
And I did play the hell out of RE back in the day, but it's not 1996 anymore and we should expect more a "3D!!" game than slow turning, poor aiming "highly trained STARS secret assassin ninja" characters that constantly are impeded by turns in the hallway and awesome voice acting. Bad controls should not be a gameplay feature of any genre.
I'm going to play some more this afternoon.
I don't think they were ever meant to be super-soldiers, and that whole idea is very counter to the genre. Typically, survival-horror heroes are everymen, or close to it. They don't have powers, they aren't fast or powerful, and aren't even designed to be "cool." Being a badass isn't scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Six
I actually think that's one aspect they may have screwed up a bit in this one, because while Carnby isn't super powerful or anything, they do develop this idea of a mysterious and special backstory and "save the world" plot that simply doesn't belong.
Not bad necessarily, but limited. Things like slow running or turning, or deliberate attempts to obscure your surroundings (using darkness, camera angles, etc) seem perfectly appropriate. There's a learning curve for AitD, but you'll get over it.Quote:
Bad controls should not be a gameplay feature of any genre.
I don't mean to sound like I'm defending every choice they made, because I'm not. They got over-ambitious on a few things that didn't work. But some of what you're talking about is simply because survival-horror is a very different sort of genre that does a lot of things that would be considered "bad design" in genres that are designed as escapist power fantasies.
Keep an eye on Dead Space though. They've managed to give you solid third-person shooter controls but still stay true to the survival-horror design ethic, by designing combat scenarios that force your to be precise and strategic under pressure. They lose a little bit of the everyman feel in the process (even though they claim they're still going for that), but I think it's a compromise that will probably make the game more accessible to people coming over from other genres.
The 360 demo is finally out now for Silver members. It's pretty long, too. The camera makes me dizzy in third-person mode but I'm definitely getting the unique yet flawed gem vibe mentioned in this thread. I'm going to replay the original AitD first and wait for a price drop but I'll buy this some time down the road.
No good could come from buying this game Neo. I've heard too many harsh reviews about the play mechanics and overall story to warrant any worthwhile playtime.
I read a lot of harsh things about Dark Messiah, too. I'd say playing the demo for himself and judging is probably a better approach than listening to someone who was forced to play through it in 2 days.
Yeah, liking the demo despite its issues plus having similar taste in games to Frogacuda who gave it a positive review, that's good enough for me.
Dark Messiah for the 360 is a different game than it's PC counterpart though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I'll defineatly download the demo, but I probably won't go beyond a rental with this one.
Here's a video review for anyone that's interested.
Yeah, I meant the PC version. It was sorely, sorely underrated, especially outside of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyne
AitD has a really nasty filler part late in the game, and if you're trying to burn through it really quickly, that's going to leave a bad taste in your mouth, but it's a mostly enjoyable game that's unique enough to be worth at least checking out.
$60? Ok, maybe not, if $60 is a lot of money for you, anyway. But if you're a fan of the genre, I'd say it's a must-rent at least.