Alone in the Dark 2008

All I heard about it is that it looked really good but played like repetitive TPS shovelware.

Same, but the gameplay, atmosphere, and texture work look really good for the time.

I figured it might be one of those games that was unfairly shat on by journalists and might be alright by today’s standards though.

Securom rootkit in the PC version, the only GOOD version of the game is the PS3 version (which was released half a year later) because the company got liquidated before they could put out the patches to put the enhancements into the other versions.

I only remember it being shit on for being nothing like the other games in the series and for having laughably bad writing I'M THE FUCKING UNIVERSE, after that I couldn't tell ya.

Was it as shit as people said? This trailer made it look pretty darn good…

It wasn't as "bad" as people around here make it out to be, it wasn't PC killing or hardware frying or anything, it was just really boring and mediocre. The game is much improved since then. As Dunkey described it, the game shows you the goods way too quickly and leaves nothing left, you've seen and done everything after the first hour. And the idea of the game continually restarting over and over again every time you reach "the center of the galaxy" was just downright dumb.

I DON'T HAVE YOUR STONE

AND FUCK YOU ANYWAY

I think the worst part of this game was the ending choices. Both are bad endings, there's no good ending. Either you choose for an innocent to be sacrificed to hold Lucifur, or you become Lucifur's cock sock.

Has vidya gotten that bad?

Yes. They absolutely have. Especially when you get into big budget titles.

I think it got a GOG release, was that any better?

So it pulled a no man's sky on you?

Was it as shit as people said? This trailer made it look pretty darn good…
yes it was shit

No, user. It was bad.
Boring and mediocre is a generic first person shooter, NMS is beyond that. It's ugly, it's extremely repetitive, it's not fun and it's as shallow as a kiddie pool.

The release was just as bad as people made it out to be. The AI was beyond atrocious, the game was prone to crashing on consoles, and there was genuinely no reason to explore due to how the monsters and landscapes were generated.

I played the Wii version when it came out (don't judge, I didn't pay money for it), and it was probably the worst version of the game, but I cannot imagine the other versions being much better.

The main problem with AitD 2008 is that it was simply unfinished. The gameplay didn't follow any fixed rules, it frequently changed between TPS, driving, running from shit, being stuck somewhere and defending, you get the idea. Basically your typical AAA spectacle shit, except they didn't have the time to actually polish those pieces. What you get is something that technically works, but the fun is lacking: you either do what the game expects you to do or you die, there is no choice in how you do it and the margin of error is too unforgiving. I think the worst part was the driving section where you have a split second to react to something that wasn't properly telegraphed. Mess up and you have to start the driving segment all over. So fucking tedious.

I gave up at some point after arriving in Central Park. As I said, I didn't pay money for the game, so I had no reason to keep playing when I could play literally anything else.

Alone in the Dark 2008 does not have a GOG release, else I would have bought it. The game still has Securom in it to this day, Securom and Atari/whoever the fuck owns it now refuse to remove it. Now don't get me wrong, it was pretty common back then in the pre-Steam popularity days for rootkits like Securom and the such to be in games (anyone else remember BioShock?).

But BioShock got patched, while this turd remains its worst possible version. As I said, get the PS3 version if you can. There's a PS2 and a Wii version of the game, but they are completely different games (even from each other).

You should have used a semicolon instead of a colon.
I'll never fucking know why they took an old school horror franchise and tried to turn it into an action series.
Alone in the Dark was never as popular as Silent Hill or Resident Evil, so it was never going to work.

...

A true crime against humanity.

yeh, I've been watching some gameplay before I buy the ps3 version and after about an hours worth I can see that it's one of those sad cases in games where it has a TON of great ideas and a lot of work put into it… but every single great idea is horribly executed. It's like everything that would have been fun just devolves into a chore…

though it's making me really sad with didn't get that Alone in the Dark remake that was going to use the same engine. If nothing else the game still manages to look really pretty at times.

...

Was that from the best VGX? Joel is still my hero for simply not putting up with that shit and making all the soyboy developers super uncomfortable.

Literally no one said that you revisionist cunt

I'm sure he can't even explain what the fuck he means by that, cause it's too easy to throw around buzzwords. Problematic, pretentious, misogynistic, voila, it's a review massturdpiece!

What’s sad is when you go back and watch 10+ year old Gamespot videos and see just how video game reviews used to be done as well as how serious those genuine nerds were.

I remember it controlled fairly poorly on PC, at least anything first person. It had a few gimmicks and that's about it. Don't believe I finished it and I usually power through games.

Actually, you know what? I decided to ACTUALLY listen to his review and not just have it play in the background, and .. then I realized just how poor this review ACTUALLY IS. Although I did have to turn the speed down to 75% because he uses quick accented English as a means to disguise some of the stupid shit he says. It starts off mostly right, but he's wrong about a lot of the things he's saying.

The inventory system does not pause, this is true, but it does slow down time by 90%. You can watch things moving in very slow "real-time" but basically unless something is swinging at you at the moment you open the inventory (thus the whole purpose of it not pausing in the first place), you have a lot of time. There's of course the "pretentious fire" bit… And he's quite misinformed when he thinks that this game is somehow based on Uwe Boll's movie. It becomes increasingly distressing when people around you begin parroting what someone else is saying, because it's easy to get your facts mixed up when you just go by simple things said by imbeciles.

The game was going to be released alongside the film, but the team saw how shit the film was, and decided to not only delay the game but rewrite the story. Which they did. Which is why the game is not actually based on the fucking movie. Not that it matters, AITD2K8's story is a bit of a nonsequitur anyway, even before 2K8.

Alone in the Dark 1 takes place in 1924 (and it was originally intended to be a Call of Cthulhu game), AITD2 takes place in 1924 as well only a few months later at Christmas time. 3 takes place in 1925 (no month provided, but one might assume 3 months later once again).

In none of these games does Edward acquire the stone, or become possessed by Lucifer. So then they made "The New Nightmare" (the same name that Wes Craven named his Nightmare on Elm Street Reboot by TOTAL COINCIDENCE, AMIRITE?).

So they basically rebooted the fucking franchise for no real reason other than because they decided to give up the old time Call of Cthulhu vibes (also because Resident Evil was incredibly popular, which is why the first enemies in New Nightmare are Zombie Dogs…).

Of note there is no Alastair Crowley, no Theophile. Not in ANY OF THE GAMES, NOT IN THE MOVIE. They all happen in AITD2K8, which gives off the vibe like "THIS IS THE CONTINUATION OF A STORY" but it's not. They pulled a Star Wars Episode 4 type idea of using in media res storytelling, the only problem is, this is the fifth fucking game, second if you decide to run with the reboot being the only canon game before it .. and nothing ties together anywhere. So when people say "THIS IS A GAME BASED ON THE UWE BOLL MOVIE" they are mistaken, because it was GOING TO BE, but Nour Polloni as ditzy as she might be was like "wait, this is shit, let's not make our game based on this" and so they didn't.

Oh right, remember that pissing me off now and I was just getting wise to DRM. No wonder I never finished it.

I should have been more careful with my words. I should have said "the only ALMOST DECENT" version of the game. Good implies that fixing some of the glaring issues at the core of the game would have made the game good.

The bulk of your complaint is you taking his joke about uwe boll's movie being the inspiration seriously. Got it.

Sure, it still would have been better than getting the shit end with a rootkit on top of no fixes. I think it came with one of my graphics cards no less.

Meanwhile there's 3 fucking posts in this thread all parroting the game thing, that it was based on Uwe Boll's movie. Geez, I wonder where this idea came from. This guy ain't infallible, and he doesn't need you to make up excuses. Step off.

Also it's not that I was finished going through his review, so much as I got close to the character cap. But then I decided that I would quit in the middle of going over his video the same way he quit halfway through the game. How can you review something you never completed? It ain't even like he had to pretend like he actually finished the game, 3 years later, he could have used someone else's stuff and acted like he finished it so he could make a joke on Lightbringer fucking Universe, but he should rename his series to Zero Effort.

I still cringe when I remember liking "Joel McHale goes viral for nintendo".

"I was only pretending to be retarded!"

It's the Driv3r of survival horror games, coincidentally also an Atari game. Lots of promise but failed to deliver due to bullshit scheduling and everything. Atari really had a shitty management back then.

It's better than people say but still not good. It has a ton of great ideas executed with uneven results. For every time you wonder, "what if I tried…" and experience the blissful systemic results as you realize the programming allows for it, you get hit with two or three more glitches that stupidly impede progress or obliterate you without warning. Play it for the unique survival horror gameplay and freedom offered no where else, mourn it for ultimately failing and never getting a second chance.

I don't have your stone!
AND FUCK YOU ANYWAY

Pretty much my thoughts. Wasted Potential: Horror Edition. Neat physics engine and crafting for its time, but mostly just a waste of sixty fucking bucks, and the reason I'll never pre-order again. I will never not be ashamed of that folly.

It’s actually pretty good. It got a bad rap because soyboys got their panties in a knot because it wasn’t filled nigger-pandering.

no, it was worse

I only played & 100% the PS3 port, I didn't think it was that bad. It was ambitious but it also felt incomplete. Having to use fire permanently kill shit got annoying in some parts though.

Did they? I know Eden went on to make Test Drive Unlimited 2 a few years later but TDU2 also feels ambitious but incomplete.

Maybe before it was released because of the chair swinging and the fire mechanics. Press X to blink overshadowed anything good about this game.

there's nothing good about this game

I've had sex 3 times in the past 24 hours, masturbated about 5 times and just finished jerking off. SO WHY. does this picture illicit an errection. It isn't even sexual. Jesus fucking christ what is wrong with me.

< How can you say something tastes like shit if you haven't eaten the whole meal?
Look, I would agree if it was a case where the first half of the game was good, but the second half bad, and he decided to tell people that it's a good game based on the early part alone. But if the first half of the game is shit, why even bother with the rest? What are the odds that it's going to be good X hours in? And even if it was, why should I waste X hours first before getting to the good parts, why can't it be good from the start?

I understand that some games take a bit longer to get going, no one is going to expect the first five minutes to instantly kick ass. But if you have to spend three hours before it gets good, that's just too much.

He really talks like a guy from the 20's, doesn't he?

Stop letting your impulses take control of you dude but that indeed is a cute girl

stop doing meth

You poor bastard. Mine was > $20 preowned and I felt very good about the value.

I paid $5.

user think about the following:
You have the Alone in the Dark Series, which is an action adventure/survival horror series based around the Cthulhu Mythos and there is the existing mystery how the game series protagonist Edward Carnby can stay young for over a hundred years and nobody finds it strange.
Now imagine the reaction of Alone in the Dark fans when Alone in the Dark 5 came around and the game was based around the Christian Devil and its explained that Edward Carnby was eternally young because he was literally carrying Lucifer inside him.

Fucking retard.

Even back then old IP reboots had a reputation for being pretty much always awful.

I never understood why the fuck anyone would get excited about a reboot. They're going to take everything you loved about the franchise, and then strip it out, and leave only the trash behind.

Yes, and I streamed the entire fucking game and it's nonsense puzzles. Don't fucking play it for the love of god.
I had to actually buy the game because no one was even willing to make pirate copies of it.

It's cause of Securom.

You're a teenager

It's pretty shitty

then cue the old dude floating in a t-pose

It's a game where one of the selling points was that it was like a movie where you could skip any part you got stuck on. That alone makes it a blight, and we should all be thankful it flopped and didn't become a model for the industry to follow.

the driving sections are fantastic

I played one Alone in the Dark game that scared the shit out of me. Can’t remember which. It felt like playing a Resident Evil clone, with the mansion and puzzles. It was entertaining, I guess.

I loved it, it was messy but I found the quirks charming.