After spending the last two weeks trying to figure out whether or not I like Dante's Inferno, I've realized that I'm thinking about it too hard: I like it. How do I know? I always want to know what will happen next and I think about the game when I'm not playing, checking related forums, sites, and FAQs. That's more than I could say about, for example, the last Prince of Persia game, which I really wanted to like, but didn't.

Part of the reason I like DI is it is based on my favourite epic poem, which I've always thought provided top-notch source material for a game. I'm really impressed with the way Visceral worked with the first book of the Divine Comedy to make a game that is equal parts God-of-Warvian hash'n'slacktion (how's that for a messed-up mashed-up neologism?) and homage to Dante's original work. I love the thematic ideas they came up with: a holy cross as a weapon, the option to punish or absolve souls, holy (and unholy) relics that alter your abilities, Judas's silver coins scattered about (like breadcrumbs leading to Lucifer), and lines from the poem included in death screens, cut-scenes, and Dante's conversations with Virgil. I'm fine with the liberties Visceral have taken with the story. It's to be expected.

I also like that each circle of the Inferno has a distinct look, inspired largely by Dante's original description (at the time of writing, I have reached the Circle of Fraud (i.e. the second to last)); however, I admit I have found some of the circles a bit short, and reviewers and players have tended to complain about the later circles, which do appear to be more hastily designed than the earlier ones, but I continue to enjoy the game regardless. I wonder: during the game's development, there was news that EA had cut jobs, including some at Visceral. Did Visceral have to cut corners with the rest of DI because of this? How largely did this affect the end product? I don't see how the game could not have suffered from job cuts, unless EA only fired marketers (which may have been justified, considering how some of the game's marketing went awry).

The game has had some great moments. The most epic I've seen so far is at the beginning of Heresy (when Dante enters the City of Dis on top of Phlegyas). Awesome use of the camera panning out, of the action slowing without stopping it altogether (there are no enemies to fight, but you're still controlling Phlegyas as he crosses the long, narrow bridge to Dis), and of the sense of scale implied (i.e. Phlegyas makes Dante look tiny; Dis makes Phlegyas look tiny). Totally epic.

Although I really like DI, I acknowledge that it is far from perfect. It doesn't bother me that it is so undisguisedly similar to God of War. Fair enough. But, for example, I do find it a poor choice to continually bar the player from progressing until s/he has defeated all enemies in a room. It feels like you're constantly stopping and starting, stopping and starting. Can't the player even occasionally run past monsters if s/he chooses not to fight (as is sometimes the case in GoW)? This could help maintain pacing for less battle-focused players, and their minor penalty is the experience lost from the monsters they skip over. Also, the story unfolds in a way that is sometimes disjointed. I think a game like DI needs an enveloping, cohesive narrative from start to finish. The choppiness of the story, the major details left unexplained or inserted at times that don't entirely make sense, keep me from feeling as fully immersed in the game as I feel when reading Dante's poem.

Anyway. Although it is not quite a masterpiece of gaming, nothing like the poem is to literature, it is still solidly good. It's got action. It's got atmosphere. And best of all, it is generating tons of interesting conversation on the boards about the original poem, about sin, about religion, about controversy, about game genres and design. It's getting people discussing things, which is great.