Alone in the Dark: Inferno Comments by Dan Whitehead

Who cares, dead space is out soon.

Somehow this article doesn't feel quite finished. Shouldn't there be a slightly more elaborate conclusion than "This is good" at the bottom?

I played this through on the 360 and I liked it, despite the control and camera being upp the butt.
Hopefully the patcj will sort these out for the other version as well?

Horror games need fixed camera's. Otherwise, they're just action games in the dark...

I completed the 360 version and never really had a problem with walking around. :/
Yeah the cars were wonky and really needed some checkpoints on the 'action' sequences.
good game though. More inventive than a lot of the rubbish out there. Awful ending imo though.

What Hunam said.

cool so they update the 360 version and it's £10.50 on amazon. Better game at a cheaper price.

The 360 version isn't going to be patched.

All this does only matter for PS3 owners. I own a PC and as long as eden or atari do not offer a patch that improves the pc version they are not going to collect any money from me.

http://www.totalvideogames.com/news/GC08...

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...

Are you sure Goodfella?

Not 100%

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/09/1...

http://www.destructoid.com/360-version-o...

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2008/09/14/...

This game showed alot of promise back in the beginning. But it seems that it will not live up to its potential.

What with dead space coming out soon, together with a host of other games , im afraid Alone In the Dark will not have a space on my shelf!

Arbiter
So, what does this say about the 7/10 the 360 version received back in August?
_______

Well it's a different person talking about it but I did think that it was a little galling to have the same site give a 7 to a game then describe it later as horribly broken (or the most broken in years).

What about the superior Wii version with it's fantastic better than PS2 visuals, superb level design, sound that doesn't ever just cut out randomly, and physics every bi as good as the 360 version? Not to mention the perfecct control system that never misinterprets anything, and the driving sections that are super fun due to the realistic way you have to drive.

Despite all that sarcasm, the shooting in thw Wii version is okay. That's not relevant in this comments thread, with it being a PS3 hands-on, so I'll just say I won't bother with the PS3 version.

I really don't understand the "unfair" thing. One thing that this game is is rather easy, even more when one can (shouldn't be necessary) skip forward a few minutes, in a DVD-style feature.

Fuck you atari.

rumrum4444 could be the one to take Mike mgoblue's crown.

@Goodfella
"Not 100%

..."

So from those links they're saying that it might not be patched if the PS3 version doesn't sell and because MS limits the size of a patch the 360 patch will be control & camera fixes with the new sequences probably not appearing in a 360 patch?

As for Microsoft not being too crazy about the size of the patch; that kind of problem is just daft. They could release a patch to fix the control, camera and inventory issues and then make the new sequences available as free (or cheap) DLC. That way MS would have one less "turkey" on their system and one more "good" game. You'd think they'd want that?

This is a pity, the original Alone in the Dark is still one of my favourite games of all time and (although I realise that this is far from that game) I was looking forward to this but I'm not buying it until it's patched (and I have no PS3). Maybe on PC, if that gets patched.

Shush, Collymilad!

Atari might set their solicitors on you! Or worse, force you to play Alone in the Dark!

/shudders

"Horror games need fixed camera's. Otherwise, they're just action games in the dark..."

Makes. No. Sense.

Why. Not. ?

^I feel real weird for agreeing with Les, but I do, regarding the fixed camera thing.

@les: buy. dead. space. next. week. or. try. call. of. cthulhu. on. xbox1. or. PC.

"Shush, Collymilad!

Atari might set their solicitors on you! Or worse, force you to play Alone in the Dark!

/shudders "

I actually quite enjoyed my ONE play through AITD 360 - i just dont appreciate PAYING to be a beta tester, rather than doing it for free.

Never buying another Atari game again if they don't patch the 360 version - they're going down the pan anyway so it doesn't really matter too much *burns atari t-shirt* *Cries*

PS3 version will be superior... no doubt, but i still dont want this game.

I recently played this on the 360 and must say I did enjoy it, a few grumbles yes but otherwise enjoyable..........

until the roots of evil that is.......that became a real slog for me.........

weakest part of the game until the ending.

some lovely graphics though...........

I would say the original 7/10's it got are right.

Because Siren and it's moving camera angles was all action wasn't it.

hah i read this for a moment thinking it was alan wake. forgive me for showing concern, i don't care now.

@Les

Horror is an emotion. A sense of being horrified, the creation of terror or disgust or dispair.

To suggest that a game without a fixed camera loses it sense of horror and becomes simply an "action game in the dark" strikes me as a little odd.

A decent imaginative horror game should have much better tricks up its sleeve to disturb me with than simply hiding apparently scary things slightly out of view.

@kangarootoo

I don't fully agree with your definition of horror as far as it concerns the horror genre of video games. It's a bit too broad and could apply to something like COD4 or BiA.

IMO horror is about the power of suggestion. As video games are mainly a visual medium, that only works well when the developers know at any one stage of the game what the player is looking at. Sure you can have the occasional scare in a game with a free camera but in almost all cases (I can't think of any in which it's not the case but I'm not that big of a horror fan) this is accomplished by restricting the movement range of the player character (corridors) and therefore knowing in advance what he/she will see.

Take RE4. It is lauded by many as the best RE game but IMO it has little to do with horror and is just another (but well crafted) action game.

@kangarootoo
"@Les

Horror is an emotion. A sense of being horrified, the creation of terror or disgust or dispair.

To suggest that a game without a fixed camera loses it sense of horror and becomes simply an "action game in the dark" strikes me as a little odd.

A decent imaginative horror game should have much better tricks up its sleeve to disturb me with than simply hiding apparently scary things slightly out of view. "

I can kinda see what he means though, in many cases "classic" horror in games and movies is simply down to shock and surprise. To use a cheesy but classic example when the mutilated corpse falls out of the locker, the music strikes up and your breath catches, your heart pounds (or depending on your cynicism levels you possibly just sigh and go, "oh man, how many times are they gonna pull that one?")

If the game doesn't have control of the camera and you are, for example, looking at your shoes when that happens then it's more "what? What happened? Where did this body come from?" I don't think it needs a fixed camera for that (you could simply take over the camera for a bit) but it helps in building the atmosphere, I think.

Edit: I was kinda right I think. :)

@Les ands sneetch

Seems to me that what we are talking about here is the way in which some of the classic horror video games have presented themselves. ResEvil and Alone in the Dark both started off with fixed view cameras, and so to some degree set the benchmark.

But should they be held up as classic examples of horror games, or should they be held up as setting the rules of the entire genre? I would suggest only the former.

A game with a moving camera might be said to be "not really ResEvil", but its a large step to say it is not really horror. ResEvil 4 I agree wasn't a horror game in the typical sense, but I don't think that was really a result of the type of camera used.

Lets not stray into strawman territory here, be citing examples set in bright sunlight that HAPPEN to have moveable cameras, and then pretend that the lack of tension is due to the camera and not the blazing summer day.

And there are plenty of ways of restricting what the player can see besides stopping them looing in the right direction. Tbh, that sort of thing is less horrific in my opinion and almost feels a bit clumsy. What happened to good ol' darkness as being a means of restricting what the player can see?

Hobo mentioned the Siren games, which were perfectly scary without bluntly limiting your camera usage.

The opening street scenes in the first Silent Hill are another example. They didn't put you in a tight corridor, neither did they tell you which way you could point the camera. It was still scary as f*ck though, perhaps more so because you had no wall against which to put your back when some half-visible beasty flapped its way erratically out of the mist. Are we saying Silent Hill isn't horror now? A game series (1 and 2 in any event) which taught ResEvil a lesson or two (and probably changed the direction of the ResEvil series to where it is today, after showing how it could do a better job of it).

I can understand how the genre has created a set of rules for itself, the same happens with any game genre (and result in ludicrous arguments over whether a game is an FPS or an action shooter viewed from a first person perspective). I tend to find this limiting myself. If a game scares me, its a scary game. And if it scares me a lot, it can probably call itself a horror game. Maybe it also contains action, but lets not split hairs too much.

@sneetch

On the point you make about looking at your shoes, there are many tricks a good designer has up their sleeves to amke sure the player is looking in the right direction at the right time. One of them (used in FEAR and Condemned) is to actually wait for the player to look in the right spot before doing something, rather than just fire off your spooky moments regardless of the player.

In that regard, a fixed camera could perhaps be (cheekily) called a safety net, with which the less versed designer can drive the player experience more easily. I simply can't accept that a fixed camera is the only way to make sure the player experience the frights as you intended, its just that the job is a bit tougher without it (but usually more rewarding for the player, as the environment lives around the player).

Let me use an example for condemned. I am wandering about in a spooky building. I come across a stairwell, so I look over the banister. The designer knew I might do this and so at the point I CHOSE to look over the balcony, they had a spooky enemy waiting to lean out and smack me in the face. I SHIT myself, not least because I felt like I was in control (because I was in control, of the camera if nothing else). That is what horror is all about (and all the best games do it the same way), give the feeling of control and saftey and then take it away again. I found ResEvil 2 got less scary as the game progressed, as I knew that simply standing away from the edge of the screen was enough to give me a clear shot at whatever 'orrible beasty I could hear was crawling into view.

kangarootoo

dont you have anything better to do with your time???... that's what i call big ass testament

@kangarootoo
"But should they be held up as classic examples of horror games, or should they be held up as setting the rules of the entire genre? I would suggest only the former."

I'd go with that and with more or less everything else you say. In general I'm not much of a fan of horror games or movies, they just tend to be somewhat predictable and I think the fixed camera probably has a lot to do with that, the static nature of games like this and, more importantly, the enemies in games like this (where it's run back through the garden, avoiding the tentacle monster in the moat again, past the two rabid dog zombies again by running outside the hedge avoiding the... zombie... erm... crow etc. etc.) doesn't seem to suit horror as a genre.

You've convinced me to get Condemned too...

and several extra pairs of underwear. ;)

I'm not doing a big-arse post, but will agree with kanga that horror games don't *have* to have fixed camera points, although it has always benefitted them in a way (the intro to Project Zero 2, for example, is extremely unnerving).

I will also agree with Hunam's opening comment that AitD has long since had its chance, and Dead Space is certain to crap all over it later this month.

@sneetch

Condemned 2 is better, the crime scene investigation gameplay is really good. They are both worth a nosey, though they both go downhill after a while. Discount buy or rental I would say (but only just, I did really enjoy parts of both games).

Edit:
"and several extra pairs of underwear"

The trick is to wear them all at once. It takes the monsters longer to chew their way in. And NEVER TAKE THEM OFF.

@Triggerhappytel

The combat footage of DeadSpace that I have seen so far has left me a little unsure. The atmosphere looks ace, but the monsters seem a bit tough and require an awful lot of blasting. I tend to prefer many weak monsters, to give me the feeling I am being overwhelmed. The system also didn't seem happy when beasties got toe to toe with the player character, which can be well frustrating (see any ResEvil game you care to mention).

PS3 version way worst, hum ?

"There are just too many parts of the game that still feel clunky and unfair, and they don't seem to be the sort of things that can be redeemed without starting from scratch. It's shaping up to be a better game, then, but probably not an essential one."

that was predictable, wasn“t it ?!

Yes you are, boy. Yes, you are.

/adds to ignore list

I sort of shared your concerns over Dead Space, kanga - not that the enemies looked tough (some do, some don't from the footage I've seen), but that their design was pretty uninspired and generic.

I was sure it was going to be a decent but nothing special horror game like Cold Fear, however everything I've seen and heard about it of late just looks pretty excellent - I especially like the zero gravity sections (the effect with stuff just floating around is very cool), the vacuums (again, the almost-muted sound is an excellent effect) and the overall design of the ship and its technology - the whole package just looks really well put-together, and if it has a plentiful number of decent puzzles and not *too* much focus on combat, it might just be one of the best horror games in years.

Not just a case of Atarilol, but more like AtariroflmaoomgbbqGTFOone1oneetc.

/coat

why does it take them forever to get it out on ps3... by the time they have it out they could have improved many things (giving the fanboys ammo to use at their next argument)... it feels like the PC and 360 versions were just practice runs.

Dunno how you guys can talk about horror in games without mentioning System Shock 2 and the first AvP. They were by far the scariest games I've ever played. The horror came from the atmosphere of terror and helplessness they put you in and never relied on cheap scripted sequences like that Condemned example or silly fixed cameras and fumbly controls. Whether the designer knows what you're doing (and fixed cameras or not) is irrelevant as he shouldn't be relying on that to scare you, he's not making a film here you can only get jumped by a boo moment so much before you stop giving a crap (see FEAR).

*wonders aloud if karstux has found page 2 of this article yet*

LittleBigPlanet scares me.
That Sackfreak is waaaaaay to close to the Scarecrow in Batman Begins for my comfort.

PS3 vs 360 Faceoff Vol XMVIILLXC.
Crap game better on PS3 this time shocker.
Interwebs go into meltdown.

Apologie, don't ever try and converse with kangerootoo again, he is above your station and you should know better than to try and speak to him, bloody peasant.

"Dunno how you guys can talk about horror in games without mentioning System Shock 2 and the first AvP"

Amen to that.

@Kryon

Huh? I think I have Apologie on ignore, 'cos half his posts are just lame PS3 fanboy rants. I'll see if I can work out how to un-ignore someone and then respond (or not).

@Kryon and Apologie

Christ, I went through all that un-ignore farting about just for that? I have someone complain that I wrote a lot of words.

If you find reading difficult, or have no interest whatsoever in what I have to say (which is perfectly fine by me), then I can only suggest you ignore me.

Seriously, some people.

Edit: For that its worth, I type at near to 80wpm, so the "testament" above didn't take that long really.

@Kanga

You really shouldn't ignore Aplololol, he's a comedy genius :D

What i dont understand is the previews are saying the original version was broke badly... and it got 7/10... then they say the PS3 version has fixed alot of problems, but cannot fix some things that would require a total rewrite and it basically just as broken.

So did EG over score this game originally? To say a game is broken and still give it a 7/10 is potentially not good.

I can tell you what will happen with the review, well they cant give it less than 7 just on the basis that its better than the original verison, but they have also said that there are lots of things still wrong with it (not that they said that in the original review), so the PS3 version will ALSO get 7/10.

This game is horrible......... Don't buy it......... Dead space, GOW2, Fallout 3 and left 4 dead will be out and kicking this pile of steaming shit ass

AITD was one of the most frustrating games I've played for ages, there was a good game trying to escape the clutches of a wretched control system and failing.The fact that they've corrected many of the faults for the PS3 version is of no use to the poor souls who struggled through the earlier version.