Thread of Alone in the Dark Dissappointment, Reviews are coming in : (

CVG Review - 7.3/10 (Review Supposedly Contains Spoilers)

Excerpt:

"They said it was for the people... they lied. There comes a point in AITD, about 80% in, where Eden Studios pulls a very cheap trick. It artificially boosts the longevity of a game perilously close to the wrong side of the six hour mark by featuring a root-killing collect-a-thon, similar to Zelda: Wind Waker's Triforce shard hunt. For one brief moment we caught sight of the game we were promised. Then, after a quick spell, it was all over."

Official Nintendo Magazine - 6.4/10 (Wii Version)

It's with a great sense of anticipation that ONM approach the launch of Atari's brand new thriller adventure game. Nintendo gamers haven't been treated to a mature game with a genuinely thrilling storyline since Resident Evil 4 was released over a year ago and it's about time fans of the genre got something to stick their teeth into. ONM are sorry to report though that you might want to chomp down on your Wii Remote for a while because the two words that immediately spring to mind here would have to be 'utter' and 'disappointment'.

Alone In The Dark is a thriller adventure game set in the city of New York. You begin the game clueless of your origins or your identity with your only concrete knowledge being that people around you are being slaughtered by an unseen evil at an alarming rate. You play through the game learning who you can trust and what abilities you possess but you have to learn quickly because the mysterious evil that seems to be taking over the city is growing more powerful.

Gamesreactor - 3/10 (Review controversy: Atari said they sent them the game only a day before the review came out, but I think thats more of a testament to how short the game really is)

Graphics: 4
Gameplay: 3
Lyd: Audio: 4
Durability: 3

Plus's:

The summary when you load a saved game.

Minus:
Poor controls, slow, feels old, bad voice acting, frustrating gaming mechanics

Eurogamer - 7/10

Alone in the Dark is ultimately likeable, even lovable. It's stunning to look at it in places, too, and it's capable of ****c gaming moments: quieter than the Would You Kindlies and This Was A Triumphs, but just as special. And in Edward Carnby's practical survivor, Eden has a tool players will enjoy sharpening. The problem is that every time you get excited about Alone in the Dark, it shuts you down.

At times it's akin to Atari's Boiling Point: Road To Hell of three years ago; throw any score on the ten-point scale and it will stick to something, but there's so much friction on the lower end that it's often impossible to pull away and remember when you brushed past genius. You want to love it, but it just keeps letting you down, and in the end that's the impression that sticks to the wall and stays there.

Offical Xbox 360 Magazine (UK) - 6/10

It's difficult to like a game that's constantly firing a shotgun into its own foot. Before you skip to the end and see the poor score X360 would just like to point out that at times they actually liked this game, at least for a few short moments during its frustrating eight episodes of gameplay.

There are so many fine and novel ideas but they're not implemented well, making playing the game frustrating or repetitive. If you've ever played the (much less flawed) PS2 cult ****c disaster-movie inspired S.O.S. The Final Escape, you might notice a lot of similarities in the first couple of levels. You're thrust into the action with little let-up for a good hour or so. Gasp as you hang from about 30 storeys up as gargoyles come crashing down past you. It's very exciting. The protagonist, Edward Carnaby, has no memory of his past (this isn't one of the novel ideas) but has to escape a rapidly collapsing New York City and make it to Central Park. Huge cracks are ripping apart the city, they're swallowing people, buildings, everything. Cars dangle precariously from the top of cliff as you gingerly guide Edward past them before they crash down into a bottomless ravine.

Some potential showing screens:

Images Link

Images Link 2

Wii Footage

New Trailer

Dang. I was really looking forward to AitD since the developers had a lot of really cool ideas, but it just sounds like the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

Balls. I still want to be excited for this game. The gameplay footage I've seen looked so interesting.:( I know I should abandon hope, but this looked new and different.rragnaar

please post, I'll give you thirty dollhairs. ;)

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Balls. I still want to be excited for this game. The gameplay footage I've seen looked so interesting.:( I know I should abandon hope, but this looked new and different.HiResDes

please post, I'll give you thirty dollhairs. ;)

[QUOTE="HiResDes"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Balls. I still want to be excited for this game. The gameplay footage I've seen looked so interesting.:( I know I should abandon hope, but this looked new and different.rragnaar

please post, I'll give you thirty dollhairs. ;)

Post some of the footage you've seen, I've seen very little of this game in action, especially from non-Wii versions

[QUOTE="rragnaar"][QUOTE="HiResDes"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Balls. I still want to be excited for this game. The gameplay footage I've seen looked so interesting.:( I know I should abandon hope, but this looked new and different.HiResDes

please post, I'll give you thirty dollhairs. ;)

Post some of the footage you've seen, I've seen very little of this game in action, especially from non-Wii versions

[QUOTE="HiResDes"][QUOTE="rragnaar"][QUOTE="HiResDes"]

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]Balls. I still want to be excited for this game. The gameplay footage I've seen looked so interesting.:( I know I should abandon hope, but this looked new and different.rragnaar

please post, I'll give you thirty dollhairs. ;)

Post some of the footage you've seen, I've seen very little of this game in action, especially from non-Wii versions

Oh okay cool, and I'll work on getting you those dollhairs, hopefully Malibu Stacy and Hollywood Barbie will be sufficient.

I guess I'm surprised that others are surprised that an Alone In The Dark game is average at best. When you stop and think about it, this hasn't been a relevant series for 15 years.

I guess I'm surprised that others are surprised that an Alone In The Dark game is average at best. When you stop and think about it, this hasn't been a relevant series for 15 years.

Shame-usBlackley

That's true, but there hasn't been an ambitious AitD since the original.

I don't think it's so much that we were expecting a good Alone in the Dark game, but we were hoping for one.

:(

I guess I'm surprised that others are surprised that an Alone In The Dark game is average at best. When you stop and think about it, this hasn't been a relevant series for 15 years.

Shame-usBlackley

But this one was supposed to have real-time fire physics! :P

Oh damn, I'm still disappointed, though. I really wanted this one to be good, and tried not to get my hopes down when that Eurogamer review flashed a 7 in front of it.

I don't think it's so much that we were expecting a good Alone in the Dark game, but we were hoping for one.

:(

LordAndrew

yeah this is more of what was going on.

Oh, ONM UK are usually very generous with their reviews -- to put it in context, they gave Red Steel and Wii Sports about 90% (not sure on the exact score)

So, I'm sorry to say, but if ONM thinks it's bad, then it is very likely that this game is bad.

I guess I'm surprised that others are surprised that an Alone In The Dark game is average at best. When you stop and think about it, this hasn't been a relevant series for 15 years.

Shame-usBlackley

I'm not surprised that this game is a disappointment, for a long time the game seemed like a tech demo and they really haven't shown much in terms of gameplay set-pieces, the thing they were most proud of was that you can set things on fire and how the inventory system was presented, frankly an inventory system has to be simple and manageable first, and things like fire have to be shown how they're integrated into puzzles and various challenges via set-pieces and the actual execution of ideas is probably the hardest part, and they've never really shown it much.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

I guess I'm surprised that others are surprised that an Alone In The Dark game is average at best. When you stop and think about it, this hasn't been a relevant series for 15 years.

EvilTaru

I'm not surprised that this game is a disappointment, for a long time the game seemed like a tech demo and they really haven't shown much in terms of gameplay set-pieces, the thing they were most proud of was that you can set things on fire and how the inventory system was presented, frankly an inventory system has to be simple and manageable first, and things like fire have to be shown how they're integrated into puzzles and various challenges via set-pieces and the actual execution of ideas is probably the hardest part, and they've never really shown it much.

Yeah, that's a good point. Most developers opt to show more of the gameplay side when they're proud of something.

You guys are already giving up on the game and you havn't played it?

I mean I was never THAT excited about it because I didn't like the first game (people looked like frogs, slow-mo kicking, purple zombies, etc.) but just because some bad scores are out there is no reason to give up hope.

You miss out on some great titles if you go solely by review scores.

I remember playing the original back on PC when it came out. Very good game for it's time, I think the optimist in me was hoping this game would revisit the spirit of the original. Too bad it landed in the wrong hands.

Well, if you actually read the reviews rather than just looking at the scores, you'll find that most of them liked the game, but none could get past the cumbersome controls and wonky inventory. But it still looks good. In fact, I'm more likely to get it now having read a few reviews, than I was before.

And besides, a 7 from Eurogamer is a very good score. It's roughly equivalent to a score of 8 on GS or 8.5 on IGN, so I wouldn't write this game off just yet....

I was looking forward to this game, but after all these poor review's i dont now.Vadoc81

And besides, a 7 from Eurogamer is a very good score. It's roughly equivalent to a score of 8 on GS or 8.5 on IGN, so I wouldn't write this game off just yet....

streak000

It is interesting that Gamerankings.com failed to recogize this, as numbers have a different meaning among review sites/magazines.

Wait......so this game was done by Atari and many of you had expectations or hope for this game? Shame on you all. I knew from the get-go this game was going to be another Atari suckfest. It's just a shame that such a woefully inept developer still had their clucthes on the license.

The first review seems like they're all over the place, another reason to ignore the score and read the text. Besides being very shallow in depth, on one hand they complain about having to go what seems like a backtrack quest with poor controls and a lousy inventory system, but somehow its worth it?:? Doesn't sound like it.

Well, if you actually read the reviews rather than just looking at the scores, you'll find that most of them liked the game, but none could get past the cumbersome controls and wonky inventory.

streak000

Sounds like two big issues under the purview of gameplay. Shall we just rate games on how pretty they look?

I guess I'm surprised that others are surprised that an Alone In The Dark game is average at best. When you stop and think about it, this hasn't been a relevant series for 15 years.

Shame-usBlackley

Yeah, I feel the same way as I did when Haze came out to middling reviews - people are surprised that the game isn't fantastic? I've seen nothing in screenshots and videos or read in previews that made Alone in the Dark sound anything more than mediocre.

Well, if you actually read the reviews rather than just looking at the scores, you'll find that most of them liked the game, but none could get past the cumbersome controls and wonky inventory. But it still looks good. In fact, I'm more likely to get it now having read a few reviews, than I was before.

streak000

but it didn't get a 10/10, so it must be horrible! :roll:

It seems like people here can't think for themselves anymore...

Wait......so this game was done by Atari and many of you had expectations or hope for this game? Shame on you all. I knew from the get-go this game was going to be another Atari suckfest. It's just a shame that such a woefully inept developer still had their clucthes on the license.

The first review seems like they're all over the place, another reason to ignore the score and read the text. Besides being very shallow in depth, on one hand they complain about having to go what seems like a backtrack quest with poor controls and a lousy inventory system, but somehow its worth it?:? Doesn't sound like it.

MarcusAntonius

no expectations my friend, we were just hoping.

WHen every review starts to say the same thing, that the game did indeed have a great load of potential, but that it eventually descended into a dissappointment...I think its fair to say, that it would be logical to acknowledge what they are saying, otherwise one look like they are in a state of denial. HiResDes

Silent Hill 2 is regarded as a classic by the survival horror community, but was ranked the lowest of the series. It's PC version has a 70% average on Gamerankings.

I think I'll take my chances and actually play AITD before forming an opinion.

[QUOTE="HiResDes"]WHen every review starts to say the same thing, that the game did indeed have a great load of potential, but that it eventually descended into a dissappointment...I think its fair to say, that it would be logical to acknowledge what they are saying, otherwise one look like they are in a state of denial. Doctor-Salvador

Silent Hill 2 is regarded as a classic by the survival horror community, but was ranked the lowest of the series. It's PC version has a 70% average on Gamerankings.

I think I'll take my chances and actually play AITD before forming an opinion.

That's because Konami's ports are always weak. PS2 version has an average of 86%, so...

[QUOTE="Doctor-Salvador"]

[QUOTE="HiResDes"]WHen every review starts to say the same thing, that the game did indeed have a great load of potential, but that it eventually descended into a dissappointment...I think its fair to say, that it would be logical to acknowledge what they are saying, otherwise one look like they are in a state of denial. ed24

Silent Hill 2 is regarded as a classic by the survival horror community, but was ranked the lowest of the series. It's PC version has a 70% average on Gamerankings.

I think I'll take my chances and actually play AITD before forming an opinion.

That's because Konami's ports are always weak. PS2 version has an average of 86%, so...

Theres also Silent Hill 4, which is the second best in the series in my opinion. It got a 75%. Like I said, I'll wait to form my own opinion.

This is a little disappointing. I like a good survival horror game and this one sounded like it was going to be a winner. Instead of a Day 1 buy, I'll be hanging back to hear what actual gamers have to say before I hand over the $60.

[QUOTE="Doctor-Salvador"]

[QUOTE="HiResDes"]WHen every review starts to say the same thing, that the game did indeed have a great load of potential, but that it eventually descended into a dissappointment...I think its fair to say, that it would be logical to acknowledge what they are saying, otherwise one look like they are in a state of denial. ed24

Silent Hill 2 is regarded as a classic by the survival horror community, but was ranked the lowest of the series. It's PC version has a 70% average on Gamerankings.

I think I'll take my chances and actually play AITD before forming an opinion.

That's because Konami's ports are always weak. PS2 version has an average of 86%, so...

SH2 and SH3 were ported very well, IMO. SH4 meanwhile was a disaster on PC.