Another World: 15th Anniversary Edition Review

By Kristan Reed Published 27 February, 2007

Another re-issue.

Version tested: PC

Few games have left such a lasting impression on its audience as Another World. Almost entirely the work of one young Frenchman, Eric Chahi, it was a completely different type of videogame in 1991. One that was dark, dangerous and eerie at times. It was a lonely experience, and an exceptionally harsh journey, but an utterly compelling one all the same.

Heavily influenced by the graphical style of Jordan Mechner's Karateka and Prince of Persia, and rotoscoping animation techniques, Chahi managed to build on these efforts with impressive style. He didn't use static images or words to convey what happened in Another World, but that only added to the feeling of being dangerously at odds with your surroundings. Literally forced to sink or swim at the outset, almost every scenario from that point on serves as a severe test of your wit and will to live.

Another World was - and still is - a perilously frustrating game. After enormously impressive animated intro sequence (truly the best anyone had attempted back in 1991), you were left with no choice but to help Lester, the game's red-headed protagonist, climb out of the deep pool or be dragged under by hungry tentacles. And from there on you're left to plot an unlikely path freedom via crumbling caverns, deadly prisons and even a sporting arena.

'Another World: 15th Anniversary Edition' Screenshot 1

Endless art

Despite almost endless trial and error, there's always the incentive to find out what the next hazard-strewn section has in store. With just one fire button required (this re-issue adds an unneeded second), you'll very quickly get a handle on your ability to run, jump, kick and crouch, but never truly feel in control. Running jumps never quite work on command, sadly, and even once you get your hands on one of your captive's laser pistols, it's never quite a fair fight between you and your unfriendly hosts because of the unfair odds thrown at your at every turn. The pistol's ability to protect its user with a temporary shield allows you to throw up a strategic shield, nudge forward and shoot through the force field at oncoming baddies - but you're normally expected to charge up a super shot to knock down their shield, charge up another shield, fire rapidly, and hope that they turn into a crispy skeleton. The idea (and the sound effect) is fantastic, but the execution feels pretty inexact - which is Another World in a nutshell, really.

If the circumstances of Lester's capture weren't already strange enough, somehow the unlucky scientist ends up working together with a fugitive native in order to escape. Like the gaming equivalent of a silent buddy movie or an emotive graphic novel, the tale only seems to tighten its grip as you play, and draws you in even when the gamer in you is begging for someone to fix the clunky control mechanics which remain exactly as they were, way back when.

'Another World: 15th Anniversary Edition' Screenshot 2

Perhaps a little context is due before we rip further into the game's stubborn nature. Back in the Olden Days, instant death was still considered very much the norm, and games thought nothing of punishing players for even the slightest mistake. Painstaking progress was routinely given short shrift if you dared to stumble one pixel too far towards a floor trap, or you didn't first take care of a puzzle element. Another World almost delights in finishing you off.

Psychic tendencies required

Another World is a cleverly constructed game, but sometimes too clever by half. You have to poke around, observe your surroundings, and often consider timing before things will work out. But that, in itself, can make certain parts of the game a frustrating slog, because there are absolutely no clues provided to ease your passage. And once you do eventually squeak past some sections through dogged determination, you might wonder how on Earth you were supposed to know certain things. [Slight spoiler alert] For example, one guy I had been killing routinely needed to be allowed to unleash grenades first before I killed him, so that he blew a hole in the floor in the room below. Now, quite how the player is supposed to infer that in advance, I'll probably never know, but it's one of half a dozen situations where a certain amount of psychic knowledge would definitely be useful in advance. [End spoiler]

'Another World: 15th Anniversary Edition' Screenshot 3

Nevertheless, I stuck with it, even though I knew it was probably going beyond the call of duty to play the game to completion for the purpose of this review. After all, there are plenty of other new titles we could be spending our time on, right? That said, 15 years on, we still knew the game was short enough in comparison to modern games for it to be worth seeing it through in a few hours. More importantly, we kept wondering whether we could, hand on heart, recommend that fans go out and buy the game on its own merits.

If we're brutally honest, playing it through in 2007 was a hugely interesting experience, but hardly what you'd call massively entertaining. It's interesting to be reminded about such an awesome moment in gaming history, and to experience certain sections of the game you'd totally forgotten about, but it comes at a price. Despite the presence of extra checkpoints and some minor level design tweaks, it reminds us how routinely stressful games used to be. Maybe we're just not built for the incessant trial and error repetition any more. Maybe modern game design with its Save Anywhere approach and health bars has spoiled us. Or maybe Another World just tips the balance too far in the game's favour sometimes. Maybe being killed repeatedly and playing the same section 30 times just isn't that much fun in 2007. If you've never played the game before, you'll certainly learn some new swear words along the way.

'Another World: 15th Anniversary Edition' Screenshot 4

Another World is one of those classic games that looks amazing in the rose tinted fug of your 15 year-old memories, but doesn't fare too well in the harsh light of 2007. But it's not all bad news. Visually, its polygonal simplicity is still as effortlessly charming as ever, and it still gets by with its incredible atmosphere, but things that were everything in 1991 only get you so far this far down the line. What counts, ultimately, is that the gameplay, tragically, feels horribly dated. The combat and jumping controls are hopelessly inexact, and it quickly becomes rage inducing; buffing up the backgrounds and allowing you to run it in high resolution isn't going to change that. Few people who play old games on a regular basis would have expected anything else, but anyone who tries to re-issue a game released in 1991 for a tenner is asking for trouble. Lexicon has tried to justify the boxed version with the inclusion of an 18 minute interview with Chahi, as well as a developer diary, but it's clutching at straws, to be frank. Die-hards might find them an interesting insight for a few minutes, but they hardly justify the price difference between the boxed and the download version.

It's nice to be reminded of the many good things about Another World, but it's quite a harrowing experience in other respects. Smart nostalgics will want to keep their memories untarnished.

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (53) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Psi #1 5 years ago

    old games don't always stay good :( aint playing this again and ruining my childhood memories

  • Introspectre #2 5 years ago

    "So.

    What score would this get if it was released for Xbox Live Arcade?"

    At least a 7.

  • TakeTheVeil #3 5 years ago

    ive read and heard so many good things about this over the last 10 years but i dont think id be able to play such an old game.

  • space_ace #4 5 years ago

    it was ridiculously hard back then, and we still loved it.

  • Blerk #5 5 years ago

    I've been playing through the GBA version recently and it's much harder than I remembered it. And I'd remembered it as being 'really bloody hard'. But once upon a time I could clear the entire game without dying once... I can reach that level again! :-)

    The main problem is that you have to know what to do and execute it perfectly every time. Once you've trial and errored your way through the whole thing, you can just about play it with your eyes shut providing you can remember the sequence of joystick pushes and button presses.

    I'd love to see a 'proper' sequel to this, with the same fantastic art direction. The world was just jawdropping at the time, and it still impresses even today.

  • OnlyMe #6 5 years ago

    Hmmm, Another World is still good, don't see a 5/10 at all.

    Anyway, if you still want some more of this kind of gaming, you should check out http://onescapee.invict us.hu/ and download OnEscapee for free - a commercially released game on the Amiga in 1997, but a PC port is offered for free download now. It's a great game and has an ending with a twist - if you're patient enough to play through it.

  • paul_haine #7 5 years ago

    There's a GBA version? Is it any good?

  • Xerx3s #8 5 years ago

    HEATHEN!

  • Blerk #9 5 years ago

    GBA version. Official and completely free, but you'll need a flash cart to be able to play it on a real GBA.

    The site's in French, but the game itself has English or French text.

  • barchetta #10 5 years ago

    Quote: "Maybe being killed repeatedly and playing the same section 30 times just isn't that much fun in 2007. If you've never played the game before, you'll certainly learn some new swear words along the way."

    Heh, heh... having just finished COD2 on Veteran I think some of us are still jumping through hoops to finish some games!

  • DNM #11 5 years ago

    Anista anista rah rah! Anista anista rah rah!

  • jamespo #12 5 years ago

    Funny - I don't remember this being too hard at all, in fact I remember it as being one of the only games I finished on the amiga. Certainly no prince of persia.

  • mouse Verified Graphic designer, Eurogamer Network #13 5 years ago

    Just cos you suck at it Kristan!

  • krudster #14 5 years ago

    Hey! I've finished the game twice now, I officially rule!

  • haowan #15 5 years ago

    While I agree that the platforming is slightly dated, I disagree with the statement that the combat feels dated. It's every bit as sharp as it ever was and feels like an integral part of the game. The gun's design is genius.

  • kangarootoo #16 5 years ago

    They should really have released this for free.

  • Svecke #17 5 years ago

    No matter what the reviewer says, I can still play through this in an afternoon without moaning and whining. Still a great game.

  • krudster #18 5 years ago

    Would you pay £10 for the privilege, though? I still love this game dearly, that needs to be re-stated. I'm just not keen on being asked to pay this much for my memories to be slightly tarnished.

  • node #19 5 years ago

    See, you're reviewing this as if everyone played it before. In which case of course it won't hold up.

    I never played it and so far I'm really enjoying the unique visual style and story setting. Sure, the gameplay is deeply limited and linear, but when I remind myself this came out on the Amiga it's still damn impressive and I definitely want to see it through.

    If an enjoyable and unique game so far removed from the existing crop came out today I'd be stunned and extremely glad. Only Shadow of the Colossus comes to mind for a similarly original idea and otherworldy feel.
    Edited by 2 at 27/02/07 @ 11:20

  • yegon #20 5 years ago

    >>>GBA version. Official and completely free, but you'll need a flash cart to be able to play it on a real GBA.
    ------


    Oooh good call! Runs like on a treat on the PSP emu!

  • krudster #21 5 years ago

    For atmosphere it scores 10/10 and is worth experiencing on that basis alone - but leave the rose tinted spectacles at the door, and this is a bit of a clunky mess at times - mainly because of the legacy of fitting the controls on one stick/one button.

  • floppylobster #22 5 years ago

    It'll always be a 9/10 for me. There're not many games I played back then that I can still remember every level. Made such an impression on me I brought an import Mega-CD just so I could play the sequel. Why was it not included with this?

  • Blerk #23 5 years ago

    Because the sequel wasn't created by Eric Chahi, it was done by Sega. And he thinks it's rubbish. :-)

  • Mike_Hunt #24 5 years ago

    5/10?! Say it isn't so.

    I'm buying this just to prove you wrong!

    [MH]

  • redneon Verified Programmer, SUMO Digital #25 5 years ago

    5/10? That's an insult to the original game and it's creator!

    I bought this a few months ago and I couldn't disagree more. I thoroughly enjoyed playing through it again partly BECAUSE of how difficult it is. It's a short game as it is without it allowing you to beat it ridicuoulsly easily (as most games seem to do nowadays!).

    It certainly hasn't tainted my memories of a game which I loved as a child. In fact, it's brought them back into sharp focus!

    I can't see how you justify 5/10 even with the flaws that you consider. Consider the piles of shite that get 5/10 or even higher (*cough* Need for Speed *cough* Def Jam *cough*) on this website, games that aren't worthy enough to lick Another World's metaphorical boots, and 5/10 is most definitely an insult to both the original and it's creator. Shame on you.

  • kangarootoo #26 5 years ago

    @redneon

    The day we start giving games scores based on not wanting to offend the game or its creator will be a dark day indeed.

    Every dev (I include myself in this) needs to accept that some people will say bad things about their creations. Thats just life if your work is in the public eye. Just like actors, directors, etc need to accept that sometimes people will say their films suck.

    Any dev that can't take criticism is going to find life hard. It might not be "fair", but we make the choice.

  • Feanor #27 5 years ago

    +1 million for correctly using "infer" and not "imply".

  • redneon Verified Programmer, SUMO Digital #28 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I'm a game developer too and I can give and take criticism where it's due. For a start, if there are no bad games then there's nothing to compare the good ones against :) Plus, it's the only way that we learn.

    I don't mind you saying that it's aged. All games age. But 5/10 seems extremely low for a game that is widely regarded as a classic.

  • UncleLou #29 5 years ago

    But 5/10 seems extremely low for a game that is widely regarded as a classic.

    They rereleased it in an updated form, so the developers and/or publishers deliberately took the risk that it would get compared to today's releases. The review makes it clear what a milestone the game was at the time.

  • kangarootoo #30 5 years ago

    @redneon

    Well, the pros and cons of the score are a seperate issue. I personally haven't played the game for years so I might well have the same attitude as Kristan (that regardless of nostalgia and historical significance, the game doesn't stand up in modern times).

    I ranted a bit recently about Rootbeer Tapper and I'll paraphrase my points here. A game needs to be fun in order to be good. A game may have been fun 10 years ago, but if by comparison to its modern peers it is no longer fun, then it is simply no longer fun. Things are very subjective, and I don't doubt we genuinely had a lot of fun playing some games of yesteryear. But I don't think nostalogia should play a part in an honest appraisal of a game as it currently stands.

    That said, nostalgia does actually increase fun for some gamers, so how do you cater for them with the score. Maybe a 2 score system for retro titles? Not sure I like that idea, as I personally think scores are over rated anyway.

    Anyway, tangential ramblings aside, I absolutely support you in discussion of the merits of said game. It was purely the "its an insult" defense I took particular issue with.

  • playgen #31 5 years ago

    Thing is the game hasn't suddenly become better or worse, the game hasn't changed but you have. So I say your a 5/10 gamer these days if the game is too hard for you!

  • thegouldfish #32 5 years ago

    So So So worth more then 5/10.

  • kangarootoo #33 5 years ago

    @playgen

    That isn't how games are scored though. Scores are attributed based on comparison to the current set of peers (EGs score policy says as much). Thats why people getting so het up over game X getting more than game Y is so pointless.

    Example, when Last Ninja first came out it looked great. Magazines that scored components seperately gave it a high score for GFX. Should it STILL get a really high score for GFX now, alongside the likes of Oblivion and GeOW?

  • playgen #34 5 years ago

    Yes it should get a high score for graphics if the art style is good.
    A beautifully drawn image in 16 colours is better than a rubbish one in hi-def and 16 million colours.

    I think the 5/10 score is judged more on your personnal opinion on this type of game than wether it is good example of its type - which it is. If you dont like games that require trial and error to progress, you wont like this game at all, but then you wouldnt have liked it when it came out either.

    No offence intended but perhaps someone else should have reviewed the game. I dont like RPG games so I would be a poor choice to review one because I would give it a crap score regardless of it's merits. It doesn't always give a fair representation of a game when the person reviewing it doesn't enjoy the genre.
    Edited by 3 at 27/02/07 @ 15:26

  • kangarootoo #35 5 years ago

    @playgen

    If we are talking about graphical fidelity, all you have to compare with are your peers. That is why LN rated so highly at the time, as it was way better than anything else around.

    I take your point on art style having value in itself, my LN comparison was an example to help me make my point, not a suggestion that AW has crap gfx (something I don't believe is the case).

    I actually did like this game when it came out, but by modern standards it simply does some things wrong. Anyway, my personal feelings about the game aren't really the point. I am simply saying that comparing games to their peers is crucial in a review, hence a game that got 9/10 10 years ago may not able to justify the same score if released today.

  • redneon Verified Programmer, SUMO Digital #36 5 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    Yeah, I was a bit harsh saying that it was an insult. It really wasn't. As you rightly pointed out, everything's subjective. I'm sure that there are many people who never liked the first incarnation of this game.

    I think I just turned into a fanboy for a few minutes at what I thought was a particularly low score =o)

  • playgen #37 5 years ago

    Review scores can have little meaning as to if a game is enjoyable to you or not.

    Thing is do you score a game by thinking if the general gaming population will like it - and in this case I guess a lower score is deserved, because this is a game not many will enjoy due to its trial and error gameplay.

    Or do you score a game by how good it is for its genre, and then this game should score highly as its a brilliant example of its kind, and if you like trial and error gameplay then you'll like this game.

  • kangarootoo #38 5 years ago

    @playgen

    "Review scores can have little meaning as to if a game is enjoyable to you or not."

    Oh for sure. Scores are perhaps a general guide when comparing two very similar games, but there is no accounting for taste as you say. As I mentioned earlier, I think people put far too much stock in review scores.

    The words of a review (if its well written) should allow the reader to form an opinion of their own. A score is essentially the opinion of the reviewer, which may be similar to your own, but of course it may not.

    I totally wasn't taking issue with the score itself. Lets put scores aside in fact. My point was simply that rating a game in whatever way you like must surely take account of what other games are out there to compete for your money. When AW was current it had a whole different range of competition, so the rerelease could compare more or less favourably today as it has different peers against which it can be set.

    Thats all :)

  • QJ #39 5 years ago

    Another World is undoubtably an important part of videogaming history. The visual style and presentation of the original version still impresses me today - and this is from playing it a few months ago. On that level, I hold it in the same regard as games such as Ico and Okami.

    However from a design perspective, it does suffer from problems that are just not acceptable. The whole grenade issue that was mentioned in the review shouldn't have been tolerable back in 1991, let alone 2007. I would have liked to see the update try and address some of these issues as well as give it an (admittedly pretty) graphical makeover.

    I still love the game though, despite all its flaws. Titles such as Another World are what drew me into getting into the industry - and I suppose I can't give it much higher accolade than that!
    Edited by 1 at 27/02/07 @ 16:32

  • haowan #40 5 years ago

    I'm certain that Mr. Chahi feels honoured by the weight of this discussion

  • smelly #41 5 years ago

    I dont understand, this came out last year??

  • krudster #42 5 years ago

    The download version did indeed come out last year - but the boxed edition only made it out on friday.

  • DNM #43 5 years ago

    Hopefully this will get thrown onto Xbox Live, followed by Flashback and the rather swanky (at the time) Fade to Black.

  • calexico #44 5 years ago

    Agree with the test. Maybe Another World was cool in 1992 but now we are in 2007 and a lot of things change in 15 years....

    The gameplay is really bad (for today), too short, strange level design. The story and the atmosphear are cool but it's not enough. Even for 10 euros it's too much for that oldies.

  • globalisateur #45 5 years ago

    I think it's just enough to have read what the majority of us and others on reviews of this re-released game. Most of us adored the whole game and gave it a score about 8/10 or 9/10 or 10/10.

    Objectively we can't give this game 5/10 even if we didn't like the "special" difficulty which doesn't fit with the current "save" and "play" routine.
    this game try to act as in a real environment in which we have to look around and imagine without any clues or people who just say before we arrive in a new place what to do.

    OK the reviewer has the right to dislike the game whatever his reasons BUT, due to the immense enthousiasm of the majority of the players on this game, he hadn't the right to score it 5/10 along with some shitty games.

    It was not journalistically objective.
    Edited by 2 at 28/02/07 @ 11:21

  • Luckz #46 5 years ago

    I think you people whine too much. I must honestly admit that I never made it all that far into Another World, but I really loved Flashback, back in the day. I even made myself play it with a joystick once (as in the kind of joystick you'd use for a flight sim). Controls were wonky anyway, in all of the series' games, especially noticeable in 1996's Fade to Black.
    But yes, you can't honestly expect this to be outside of the 5-7/10 scale in 2007 - and where it ends up there does still depend on the actual gameplay. I can't agree with calexico's claim that it's "really bad", but as of a few years, games are expected to allow you to save at any point, to not just rely on trial & error but to give you an actual clue of what you should do..

    Globalisateur, your problem seems to be that he was being far more objective than you wanted him to be.

  • space_ace #47 5 years ago

    er, the 10-bucks value is for the docs and videos and concept drawings and whatnot...

  • QJ #48 5 years ago

    @Luckz

    Another World wasn't actually related to Flashback/Fade to Black at all - the sequel that it spawned (Heart of the Alien) was released on Mega CD without Chahi's involvement.

    /Takes pedant cap off

  • calexico #49 5 years ago

    I never played to another world before and all I can say is that if you're in the same case of me you'll find this game really bad even for 10 euros. It's not because Another World" is an old famous game that you must put a note higher than its real value.

    Pac-man was a really good game in the 80s. Is it a good game today? No. It's the same with another world.
    Edited by 1 at 28/02/07 @ 12:51

  • playgen #50 5 years ago

    Pacman IS and always will be a good game
    Its's fun to play, simple as that

    And i would say that generally you'll have more fun playing Another World than a recent game that had a 5/10 score, if for no ther reason that it's such a unique game to play

  • kangarootoo #51 5 years ago

    Jesus H christ! Can we just get rid of scores from reviews, puleeeezzzz?!

    A review is there to tell you about the game, to give you an idea of whether you might want to buy it or not. If you have already played a game and have formed an opinion, a review ceases to have a purpose.

    People will ALWAYS disagree over games. Its just never going to change. So why do people insist on whining ON AND ON because not everyone on the planet has exactly the same opinion as them?

    If someone likes the game, hurrah. Once they have formed an opinion, the score in the review simply doesn't matter. And it was never that bloody important in the first place, given that a whole shit load of accompanying words are far more useful in practical terms.

    What is wrong with you people?

  • T-Bag #52 5 years ago

    I really enjoyed playing this again.

    I have fond memories of many retro games but find playing them today an unpleasant experience. I can honestly say I loved playing AW again and it actually felt alot more responsive and fun than I remembered it.

    I don't give a damn about graphics and don't have the attention span to enjoy most new games (ie - I can't be arsed to learn the controls most of the time so stop playing after 10 minutes).

    9/10 for me - the most fun I have had gaming this year.

  • Triggerhappytel #53 5 years ago

    I bought the original on my SNES last year and gave up a few 'levels' in because it was so fucking hard.

    I did have fond memories of it in a sub-Flashback way, but don't remember it being so damn difficult.