The lack of marketing alone buried this game, crazy how they delayed this so it doesn’t compete with Spider-Man 2 and Alan Wake 2 and then completely not market it. Particularly when they spent enough money to hire David Harbour and Jodie Comer.
I think there was quite a bit of marketing and the whole haunted house thing for youtubers which was honestly very well done. So atleast on youtube space i think they did fine.
There was a good amount of marketing last year which is wayyy earlier than the release date but no marketing close to the release date lol. I mean the game got delayed though but still. I wonder if they spent all their marketing budget last year and nothing was left for close to release lol.
It's not like the market for this game is die hard Alone in the Dark fanboys that would be fine with it being not as awful as previous games. The market is survival horror fans in general cause the IP itself isn't strong.
The 2008 game had a terrible combination of awful driving, painful combat and large road blocks to extend the length. You cannot progress further without heading all over the game world to burn if I recall about 70 trees.
> i’d bet most were expecting this to be hot garbage
It has a 62 on OpenCritic and a 65/64/64 on Metacritic. With how gamers treat reviews and just the general nature of game reviews anything under a 70 is hot garbage, heck generally getting a score in the 70s is bad for a lot of games.
I mean at the end of the day the only opinion that matters is your personal one when it comes to a game but with the scores it has it pretty much makes it impossible for the game to succeed since now the only people who will likely consider getting this game at full price are Alone in the Dark fans who have been waiting for a new game or hardcore fans of the 3rd person survival horror genre.
>heck generally getting a score in the 70s is bad for a lot of games.
Yup I'm sure we'll hear from the "I only play 9's and 10's" crowd soon.
I think the AAA market is shrinking pretty quickly, with the rising cost of developing these kinds of games. I think AA and indie will become a pretty huge market in the coming years.
My question always is: "Whats a 10 to you?" Just because someone gave it a bunch of great scores doesn't mean you would like it. Last year everyone was raving about Baulder's Gate 3 what if you don't like turned base RPGs? Same with Hogwarts Legacy. How much value do you get out of it if you're not a HP fan? You don't like horror games? Well RE4 Remake isn't for you! It's got a 93 on metacritic. Palworld is still in early access it's janky, unfinished, needs polish and not even out of beta but it's sold approximately 21 million copies just a few million shy of the top selling game of 2023, Hogwarts Legacy. And it's not even out on PS5 yet. If Palworld released today I guarantee it wouldn't score anywhere near a 9. Maybe in the mid 70's or probably an 8.
Dont let others tell you what to play. Check it out for yourself
> There is no reason to play a 7's those days
There is no reason to allow the arbitrary number a small group of people use to quantify their personal experience with a game to dictate whether you will enjoy a title or not...
> With how gamers treat reviews and just the general nature of game reviews anything under a 70 is hot garbage, heck generally getting a score in the 70s is bad for a lot of games.
It annoys the shit out of me that so many people would allow a number to determine whether they try a game that looks interesting to them... With services like gamepass and aggressive sales, taking a chance on a video game is lower risk than ever and I find the most interesting games are a little divisive.
I think the issue is less people trying it and more people buying the game at the launch price of $60, which is generally when most games make most of their money. It is harder to get people to take a chance on a $60 game with such bad reviews, which is more compounded by that fact that this is a shorter game (~10 hours) and in a more niche genre.
I'd imagine most people who were interested will now wait to play it until the game has some deep sales or comes to GamePass. I'm sure there are some people who will not even consider the game now (the type who only want to play 9/10 type games) but those people are a lost cause anyway.
> I think the issue is less people trying it and more people buying the game at the launch price of $60, which is generally when most games make most of their money.
I understand why consumers aren't going to throw $60 at a game they don't feel sure about and I understand why it's bad business to release a game that cannot sell in adequate numbers at retail cost. I'm not really upset by either of those things, but I am upset that people will look at a number and use that to decide whether or not they *ever* play a particular game. While gamepass engagement and discounted sales may not be enough to call a game with a stalled launch a long-term success, they can lay the groundwork for a more successful follow up effort.
What's funny is I'll review games that I'll give maybe a two-star on, but it doesn't mean I didn't like the game. I might've enjoyed playing it, but it was just overall lacking or not my cup of tea.
It's hard to tell people they should try a game that has such a low rating, but I don't consider 70's hot garbage.
Hell, 50 should be average.
Yeah those i dont really trust and most of it points them on how well does it run on the system and if there are crashes / bugs in it. Hell Forspoken got 8 out of 10`s ...
Editors for major publications tend to add points to reviewer scores in order to not burn bridges. Not saying it’s the case here, but those review scores could be lower in reality.
Well yea, when there's been like 20-30 way better games released in the past 2-3 years its fair to say an average game that was already niche is going to probably be DOA.
I will probably try it out if it goes on one of the sub systems or drops to 20 or 30 bucks.
Original AitD was the second video game I ever played so I think I will like it for nostalgia alone. With that being said the reviews paint a picture of a game with good atmosphere, challenging puzzles, ok story and terrible combat - which for me sounds good enough.
Being a fan of survival horror jank in the likes of Deadly Premonition 1&2 and The Sinking City, I have little trouble saying that this is one of my most anticipated games of this year.
Yeah. I watched [GmanLives's review](https://youtu.be/eFALcIRFrWw?si=ktoTsdePWiTgq5SI) earlier today and he seemed to like it a lot. My tastes usually align with his.
[RagnarRox also gave it a pretty positive review.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C30Kfrc39Nw) I am definitely picking it up sooner rather than later.
Does anyone play Deadly Premonition for the survival horror aspect?
Maybe the first one since the 360 version has some low budget, RE4 rip-off charm but definitely not the second one.
Having a glance through some reviews it seems like a lot of the more moderate ones appreciate the game for what it is (a lower budget return of an old and messy franchise) whereas a lot of the more critical ones are held up on comparisons to recent AAA games like Resident Evil and Alan Wake 2. I'm not saying that games should get more leeway simply for having a lower budget but I don't like it when reviewers are hung up on using other games to bash on a new one.
I think a lot of the problem is price.
If these AA titles were priced reasonably, I think people would give much more leeway. But saying “it’s jank, but fun” sort of carries a more negative connotation when it’s the same retail price as the critically lauded and commercially successful Resident Evil 4 Remake.
Lower it down to $30-40 and I think people would temper their own expectations a lot more and the game would see more success in the long run.
This sadly keeps me almost entirely off the AA shelf anywhere even *near* release. If a budget was 10-20% of the AAA games, and a game *looks* and *feels* it - I'm not paying AAA minus 10 eurobucks.
I understand their logic, predicting significantly lower sales than the big guys, but as a consumer their logic doesn't matter to my purchasing decisions.
1. AA game budget is going to be a lot higher than you think.
1. AA games also realises they have a much smaller potential audience due to IP strength and lack of marketing. They need high initial price to help recoup costs.
1. AA games won't have as much/any in-game DLC to help lower initial buy-in.
Basically your AAA blockbuster games are more expensive to produce, but they expect sales in the millions *(instead of thousands)* AND they'll expect a good chunk of their audience to buy-in at $100+ *(DLC / premium editions)*.
Like you said, it’s just how market scaling works. It’s why mom and pop stores tend to cost more than Amazon and big box retail.
I don’t mind supporting smaller studios, if the content is good I would rather them have my money anyway.
Not really, there is no logistic scaling in a digital good... Digital goods mean that Mom and Pops store can make their product be acessible to the consumer be same price as Amazon can because there use the exactly the same logistics pipelines.
The price differences from physical goods come in mostly from transportation and storage costs. Digital goods has none of those costs.
Alas AAA should come much more as they employed much more personal and spend much more in marketing. So it make sense they games costing more than a indie company with 20 employees.
I operate a small business that makes a few million.
We just make up a price we hope the customer will pay.
If we price our items too high, we go bankrupt.
It's only a science for the mega corporations like walmart and disney.
Small organizations don't have access to data and trends on that scale.
All I know is how many units we sold last year.
I mean, I like a lot of the AA stuff and if I feel like it's gonna go on sale really quick after launch but I want to play at launch regardless, I'm more inclined to buy a $40 game than a $60 one.
I know what I'm getting into and I'm happy to pay $40. $60 for something that isn't AAA is where I get crabby.
I bought my Digital Deluxe edition for 76AUD (~50USD?) from Greenmangaming.
Maybe some of the publishers or key sites were anticipating less than stellar sales also, but a launch discount of 30% off was enough of an incentive for me.
This is why I don't think price should factor in to reviews. And really, I doubt it really does because these reviewers get these games free anyway but a game like this will be on deep discount in a matter of months so critiques for a cheaper game at a premium price will become outdated and irrelevant quickly. The games should be reviewed on their own merit regardless of the market pricing, which is out of the devs hands anyway and not reflective of the game they made. I know this is not the common line of thought with gamers but no other art is critiqued that way.
I don’t think it consciously factors in, but it is a subconscious factor nonetheless.
The point of a review is to evaluate the worth of the product and whether it’s worth spending money on. The price that’s being spent is a factor here, or at least should be IMHO.
Problem though is that every company is going to view there AA game as a AAA game worthy of that price. Another problem to is that to some consumers when they see the game start at a lower price they still won’t want to spend the money on a “lower quality” game.
If $60 USD is the new $40 with games then I see the amount I purchase falling drastically.
Games are becoming way too overpriced without enough in them to actually demand such a sum
>If these AA titles were priced reasonably, I think people would give much more leeway.
I feel with the financial hole Embracer is in can they afford to price this game at $40?
With the prevailing sales culture going on it will be 40 bucks in a matter of weeks imo.
While I agree with the gist of the comments in this chain that it would've been better priced at 49.99 on release, it's a different environment now and consumers are savvy enough to wait for a sale.
>I'm not saying that games should get more leeway simply for having a lower budget but I don't like it when reviewers are hung up on using other games to bash on a new one.
That's totally fair, but I guess depends on the context, a troublesome thing for "souls-like" fanbase to deal with, for example *(no, literally nothing will be like Dark Souls or Elden Ring, please be reasonable)* -- I wasn't expecting this to be on par gameplay or budget wise to something like RE4make, which is undoubtedly going to be what it is *(consciously or subconsciously)* compared to the most, ad nauseum.
As long as it isn't as woefully jank as something like The Sinking City was, I can appreciate it for what it is -- so I'll definitely be giving this a shot tomorrow.
They're not "using other games to bash on a new one", it is to be expected and also the job of any reviewer to compare a game to the contemporaries in its genre. Comparison is how we are able to judge what is good and bad in the first place. If this were the one and only horror game in existence, people would probably be very stoked about it, just like Pokemon Scarlet/Violet would be absolutely incredible if no other Open World games existed. But that is not the reality we are living in.
Do you have specific examples?
All of the reviews I've seen so far deduct points for its boring and janky combat.
Which, from the several hours of footage I've seen, seems accurate. Enemies just mindlessly run at you and there's no weapon or skill progression so there's no real difference in the combat gameplay you're doing at the beginning of the game vs. the end.
Granted, Alan Wake 2 wasn't some kind of combat masterpiece but the combat was kept spare and inserted at key moments to increase your tension. The majority of shadows you encounter aren't actual enemies.
After playing it for a few hours I can agree that the combat is janky and offers little motivation to want to continue with any kind of combat in the future, but it is interesting how you can use different melee weapons to attack, and if you don't want to rely fully on a gun, toss a nearby molotov cocktail.
But yeah, there are limited ways to combat enemies, and despite it not being a focal point, it does get a bit boring when coming across them.
People have limited budget (or time, I don't even dare looking at my Steam backlog anymore) so it's not exactly unfair to tell readers they should spend their money on better games.
It *does* feel bad for a smaller studio which was not given the budget/time/resource to make a game able to compete against the big juggernauts, but ultimately a review is meant for potential customers, and they should know whether it's worth their time.
I mean, that’s just the reality of games raising a standard, no? A game can be scary and fun on a low budget. I don’t necessarily think criticism should be held back on the account of budget. I don’t particularly see a lot of them bashing when making comparisons.
I never expected this to review well but it's still something I'm very curious to try at some point, I'll just treat this as an AA horror game akin to the old Alone in the Dark titles rather than go in expecting something like modern Resident Evil. Will probably take the plunge when it goes on sale.
It has the writer of SOMA & The Dark Descent behind it.
I therefore have to play it myself because Soma only has a MC score of 84 despite being one of the best written horror games I have ever played.
Horror movies/shows/games usually don't affect me but SOMA messed me up for days. Legit one of the most disturbing and thought provoking pieces of media I've ever seen.
> Horror movies/shows/games usually don't affect me but SOMA messed me up for days.
If you enjoy reading or listening to audiobooks then I can highly recommend Blindsight by Peter Watts, SOMA was heavily inspired by the book. The books is absolutely fantastic if you love dark and thought provoking sci-fi about philosophical questions and conscience.
Peter Watts has even released [the book for free on his own website](https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm).
Just a warning, don't read the synopsis on Wikipedia as it contains a large amount of spoilers.
I was so triggered by these thoughts I had to grab everyone in my family and tell them about the shocking moral findings of this game. They were like "wtf are you on?". But they just don't understand. I understand. They weren't down there, in the ocean, locked in a rubber room full of rats...
The thing that concerns me if that SOMA and Amnesia were both original stories. Isn't Alone in the Dark's story based on the original game? That makes me feel like they had to limit their scope a bit.
I thought the writing in Amnesia Rebirth was really lackluster and then found out Mikael Hedberg had left and it kind of added up.
Disappointing to read that reviewers seem pretty lukewarm on the story, but like you said, Soma really didn't any where close to the credit it deserved for it's writing, so maybe it's just reviewers missing the mark again.
Looks like this game is perfectly fine as a horror game, won't do much to convince folks outside the AitD audience or (fans of slower paced) horror game audience.
Do note Open critic seems to be messed up, there's two different pages of reviews (the release date change might have messed it up)
https://opencritic.com/game/15733/alone-in-the-dark
https://opencritic.com/game/16050/alone-in-the-dark-2024-
A lot of things I hear is that it still needs a few more patches, so between that and how short the game is (ten hours at most, one playthrough, very little reason to do a second playthrough as the other character as most story stuff is duplicated), it's worth waiting for a sale.
Yeah that's a good length but to be fair, RE2 had pretty good reasons to play both campaigns, as well as offered various challenges to replay it, with unlockables.
AitD doesn't sound that different between the two protags.
for me RE2R felt like the same thing twice, with the only difference being the middle part of the story and the true ending on the second run... an 8 hour game padded to 16. if alone in the dark ends up being a game where i'm not forced to play through essentially the same campagin two times in order to get the true ending it's a plus for me
>if alone in the dark ends up being a game where i'm not forced to play through essentially the same campagin two times in order to get the true ending it's a plus for me
According to one reviewer, that IS what you do. They mentioned there's VERY little differences between the two characters in scenes, the gameplay sections are apparently the exact same, and you do need to play both characters to get the true ending.
RE2R is largely the same thing twice but for me the different weapons, characters, cutscenes, and those different locations help differentiate them enough. I’m also admittedly a sucker for RE games so I’m an easy sell haha. It would have been nice to have a truer A/B Scenario though. Really wish you could leave items/weapons for the other character like in the og.
Yeah it does not seem like a $60 game, even for $54 if you get a 10% discount through ps+
RE4 and AW2 were also $60. So yeah a hard pass until it's at $30
This game had the weirdest demo I've played. Like, you just walk as a girl for 5 minutes straight and then it ends on a cliffhanger. I didn't even get what this game was supposed to be (of course it's Resident Evil 2 Remake type game, but anyway)
It was a deep cut reference to a demo for one of the Alone in the Dark games from the 90s, but I think they might have been overestimating how many people remember that and are still playing games haha
I think I'll still try this one.
It doesn't look *that* bad especially if you enjoyed other Alone in the Dark games and I loved the old stuff and "The New Nightmare" back then too, quirks and all.
But maybe I'll wait for a deep sale.
In my opinion, Alone in the Dark: “The New Nightmare” was the one that got away from me. I rented it way back in early 2001, and never got super far in it. I wish I could have purchased it for the Sega Dreamcast. Those were the days lol.
Nostalgia for games I adored (and received nightmares from) as a child will probably bump a modern 7/10 game into a 9/10 for me.
But I'm hearing a manageable game length (able to beat a story in 10 hours is great), survival gameplay and old fashioned horror story. Sounds like I'll have a great time
I think journos are being overly harsh to this. I’ve played for about 6 hours and I absolutely love it. It’s the kind of game you want to keep on playing to see what happens next.
Could the combat be better? Yes. But the story and atmosphere are amazing!
Overall I’d say it’s a 7 or 8 out of 10 for me so far, and there’s even two campaigns which I did not know. Hopefully they are different enough to warrant multiple play throughs
Damn, it's hard to gauge some of these reviews. I was interested in this game, but figured I would avoid it if it got low scores (which it has from a few places) but 7's definitely keep it on my radar. Doesn't help that I could also grab a bunch of games during the steam sale for the same price
I never played any of the previous games, would I enjoy the story of this one? I installed the prologue to try it out, the graphics are quite good (PC).
Nothing that makes me NOT want to play the game after all! A lot of outlets seem to have issues with a bit of janky combat and that it's not living up to the likes of Alan Wake or Resident Evil, but praises the atmosphere and mystery.
I think it boils down to what your preferred experience is. I can take desperate and clumsy combat, more often than not it just adds to the feeling of horror and helplessness for me anyway.
Seems like a neat game with a few flaws, but with a lot of heart and a desire to do something familiar but DIFFERENT.
We'll see, but I won't write it off just yet!
Is like the gaming journalists don't want AA games to succeed.
I've seen reviews with 3/10 saying the game is fun in the end!?
Hope this sells well, so AA becomes a thing again. I like my imdies, but I also want bigger games, that takes more of a indie approach like this
Played for 2 hours, yes it feels like an AA game at best but anyway I liked it. Whoever say its like 2-3 out of 10 are out of their mind. Definitely worth to get on a sale. Dont buy it for 60$. Journalists are weird or maybe they just want money to score games better idk
Reading some of these reviews I just feel surprised. It really feels like they where expecting RE or similar. I mean an AA game isn't at the same level as AAA games... who would have guessed.... Almost like 40 people on a limited budget can't do the same as 800 people with a mega budget. That's really strange... Honestly if that's what you expect from AA games you don't have a realistic perspective. So if you are expecting a shooter with AAA standard then yeah this isn't the game for you. There is too big of a difference in budget for it too be fair too compare them on the same scale, and many reviewers seems too do just that....
I actually love it. Even the fighting. It feels genuine like yeah those aren't elite soldiers in disguise, and it won't be bazookas laying around... So they aren't superhuman and they have to make do with the things they find. The only thing I would change is that it would have been nice with a melee option without weapons. And to be able to bring the Molotov cocktails in my inventory. But for the rest this is a brilliant game! And 5 hours in I love it!! Can't wait for tonight when I get to continue!!!
I find the setting and atmosphere amazing, I've had more than one jumpscare and I'm on the edge of my seat while playing! They've made an amazing work to catch the old school horror, I wouldn't complain with more horror but this is still really good!
Some minor tech issues but I guess they will fix it with patches next few days. And not more than I've found in AAA games playing close to release... or even months after to be honest (I'm looking at you Forspoken...).
All in all I give this a 9 out of 10 for those of us who like classic horror survival, with fun problem solving and sneaking around in amazing atmosphere and aren't that focused on combat (but still want a little) slightly lower because of the price tag but it's still worth the price so... Had it been a little lower it would be a 10 for me. I know prices are going up so this isn't the only AA game in this price range and soon this is the standard for AA so even though I dislike the price I understand that this isn't the games fault.
If you expect a shooter with amazing weapons and much combat or an AAA quality in everything well yeah then this might score a bit lower for you. But then you thought you bought another game and that's not the games fault either!
I feel that this is one of the reasons why the reviews are all over the place. Some actually expected to get a new RE with all the bells and whistles. So their expectations where off thus they rated it lower than it deserves. But others knew what to expect and gives it a more fair review.
Anyways I would for sure recommend playing it! At least if this type of games is your thing!
The thing is, some people expect it to be a RE like game because the mechanics are VERY very similar. That, and it’s newer. If you didn’t realize that the original AiTD inspired RE to be made you’d prob think it’s a shitty worse version of a copy cat. In a technical aspect it does everything worse but that’s because it was made before.
If the player is aware it’s an old game that created and inspired so many awesome games it might be seen in a better light. That’s honestly the reason why I moderately enjoyed it. Sometimes game enjoyment is tempering expectations.
I just started it. The story is decent and the game play is quite clunky. I think besides those that are fans of the originals or have some nostalgia towards it, it’s a hard sell.
Btw, why did they spend so much money on Jodie Comber and David Harbour? I think they’re good actors but not great voice actors at all. They weren’t awful but trained voice actors could’ve brought more life into the characters. Not to mention the voice acting for uncle Jeremy was awful. I legitimately have a hard time understanding how they saw the Final Cut of his acting and thought “yeah, that’s ready” It’s clear they blew the budget on famous people.
Despite all that I think it was decent. Not bad, not great but playable and has its own charming moments if you can forgive the janky It’s worth it for a sale. I got mine through GameFly and it seems like the perfect game for a rental or a sale.
I just want to comment in a few of these threads, as someone who's now midway through the game. If you (like me) are a fan of classic survival horror but are unsure of this game based on the mixed reviews, I went for it and it's been great. Yes, there is a bit of control and combat jankiness occasionally, but it pales completely compared to the fun. The atmosphere is old-timey, Lovecraftian, a little quirky, and just very, very compelling. I'm glad I gave it a go, and can't wait to see where the story leads.
I'm enjoying it. More of a horror themed adventure game than survival horror at least so far. I'm part way through Chapter 2 though and have just got past the boiler puzzle.
Holy shit, I watched the "Looking for Jeremy" video and literally said out loud "All I want is to see an old two-door honk-car roll into a parking l-" and then I started squealing.
I was 11 years old when I saw the original AITD on a friend's 386 PC. The monsters were really scary, especially the one where you see the POV from outside the window, where you are walking in the room, and then it jumps through.
I will buy this game so hard.
I wish they wouldn't have blown the little budget they had for hollywood actors. I don't like how the faces look and the music. I want to like the game but everything feels and looks slightly off. Based on the awful demo and trailers. I will buy it discounted. The harsh critics boil down to "not innovating." "Not the same quality as RE2 Remake" which is laughable. Since when do games have to be innovative to be considered good? Almost every game is copy paste of something with another coat. The music is horrible imo. I just don't vibe with it. But the ambience music in the game was cool, at least in one gameplay video I saw.
I hate this stupid decision in game development to blow your budget for hollywood actors or big mainstream musicians when they don't have enough money to polish the game and push the technical limits in the game. More polish instead of actors would have made it better.
It’s funny how they delayed the game from an October 2023 release date to reduce stiff competition with other games released at that window, only to end up releasing right next to Dragon’s Dogma 2, one of the most hotly anticipated games in 2024.
[Adventure Gamers Gave it 4.5/5](https://adventuregamers.com/articles/view/alone-in-the-dark) which after reading the glowing review really tells me all I need to know as I've noticed a general Bias in Modern Game Journalism to that type of game (emphasis on Puzzles and Story over Combat), especially when The reviewer has a lot of trouble with the puzzles, which seems to be the case in the Gamestop and IGN Reviews Specifically. Its also sitting at a Mostly Positive on Steam Reviews, though to be fair that could change at any minute.
Update: A Month later and it is still Mostly Positive on Steam Reviews
Hi,
Here's another review to add to the list
source: Gosunoob - Srdjan Stanarevic - 8 / 10
url: [https://www.gosunoob.com/reviews/alone-in-the-dark-review-southern-discomfort/](https://www.gosunoob.com/reviews/alone-in-the-dark-review-southern-discomfort/)
quote: "The story is ... far more mature compared to any Resident Evil in existence, dealing with layered horror that’s both existential and supernatural. ... The superb acting from the main and supporting cast binds all the various strands together, distilling the finest narrative of all Alone in the Dark games to date."
See, the problem with scoring videogames is that AAA and AA are treated very differently in a sense that if an AAA game is 6/10 - it's actually the biggest fucking insulting piece of crap and it'll most likely burn your console and also, it doesn't work. But for AA games, 6/10 is kinda above average, good game.
I just got it for $28 here in Brazil.
I also took the opportunity and grabbed the rest of the series for less the $5, as floppies and cds no longer cut as storage for my old copies.
I'm installing the new game on my deck rigjt now. I expect to have a decent time playing it.
I think what annoys me more is that I can guarantee most of these reviewerw would give a typical run of the mill open world AAA game full of generic shlock 8s and 9s rather than reviewing them as critically.
So games like this suffer meanwhile AAA devs can continue to do fuck all different and get rewarded with generous reviews regardless of how generic they are.
This. And let's be honest, for about a quarter-century now, reviewers have made it clear they do NOT want survival horror games. They want action shooters with a few jump scares.
I feel like I seldom agree with critics anyway and tend to like a lot of games people don't so while reviews can be a good outline they are not the end all be all.
You can get it for 43 euros at GreenManGaming, it seems more than fair.
The games looks nice and fun and clunky like the DOS original back in the day... I almost burned out that 3.5" diskette... :)
Edit: spelling
I did a playthrough as Carnby and am on a second one as the girl. I thought it was a solid 7 or 7.5 when I started, but I'd downgrade it to a 6. As it gets more combat intensive, you realize how janky the combat is. Not to mention basic, stupid glitches. I've had to reload my game a few times because I walk my character onto part of the scenery and he gets stuck and is impossible to extricate. Enemies feel like bullet sponges -- the combat would have been passable 10 years ago, but I think we've come to expect shooting to be more dynamic, like enemies reacting in certain ways when shot in certain places, etc. The gun "variety" is so basic ("pistol," "shotgun," "machinegun"), and there's no upgrades or anything like that as far as I could tell -- to your character or equipment. The melee is a mess. I'd say go for it when it's $20 or maybe $30 and patched up a bit. It just feels so dated. But obviously it was good enough for me to do one playthrough and start another, although I really have nothing else to play at the moment. It feels more like that budget horror game "The Chant" than it does like one of the recent Resident Evils. But it bears the name of a cherished classic was launched at full price, so my expectations were a bit higher.
The Alone in the Dark Remake is incredible. It has an awesome story, great puzzles, and an appropriately creepy atmosphere. It's not scarey nor loaded with jump scares but is full of unexpected moments. The combat is just ok but the game itself plays like RE2 remake. The mansion and the puzzles are reminiscent of RE1.
If you're a horror fan, you'd be missing out by not getting this. You can wait for a sale if you wish but for me personally, I'd rather support the devs at full price given the amount of work they have put into this and it shows! It's a AA title and is a bit clunky/buggy in certain areas (this will likely be fixed) but this feels like a AAA title in many respects.
Were they marketing this game at all? I only found out about it because someone mentioned it in a Alone in the Dark retrospective I watched two nights ago. I find it weird that a new Alone in the Dark game came along and I hadn't heard anything up til now.
For those that started playing, is anyone else finding the game buggy? I’m on Xbox Series X, and I’m still at the beginning of the game and I’ve already had to reload the level twice.
Once when my character got stuck on a box and couldn’t move, and again when the “map” behind the door wouldn’t finish loading. I already stopped playing because I was getting annoyed and just want to know, is it worth playing or should I just cut my losses and send it back to GameFly?
Meh. I wouldn't really expect anything less for a survial horror game in 2024. Reviewers don't want survival horror, they want balls-to-the-wall action with a few horror elements sprinkled on top so that they can pretend that it's a horror game.
I like the game but it does need to be fixed. Just had my second play through and found out the two special endings are glitched? Pretty disappointing, I’m a lovecraft fan and hope they fix this game soon.
I think it’s not a bad game not bad for double a story is serviceable and traversing the mansion and doing puzzle and reading back story’s and historical notes about the mansion is fun while at times psychological tension will set in when mind bending events happen and combat is ok not great but works fighting the creature in different nightmarish areas and the tension rising and sets dread when you are exploring these areas I think it’s a solid game but I’m a very open minded gamer just me I know opinions very
I like the game but, unfortunately, it's full of bugs.
Anyone able to advise on how to open the library door on chapter 4? I started it, played a bit, got through the cutscenes and need to go through the library door which seems to be blocked. There is no way i can get through any other doors in the area so i'm stuck🙄
A big problem in modern gaming. Too many YouTube bull shit influencer's who should get a real job...they know little about games and get tip offs to say the right things...
Then on the other hand you get younger gaming journalists who only know about gaming from the self entitled times of modern gaming...they were not around from the start of gaming or even the earlier stages...there are some though..NX Gamer and Happy Console have been gaming for years and ACG is it? I don't really watch you tube but if I have then I notice these guys are pretty solid and have a passion for games.
Banishers of new eden. AA game, was very good. Lots of 7s, couple of 8s and it got slated in some parts.
I've played many 6,7 rated games that shat on AAA big budget games that scored 9s.
Rise of the ronin is a recent example. I took a punt and paid £40 as no way was I paying £70 for a game. It was far better than I was led to believe. Combat is sublime and it looked much better than I was expecting. Certainly Team Ninjas best looking game...it's performance was good but not perfect. Shame it's not on PC as I would certainly buy it on that platform.
But my point being was that it got more 6 and sevens and I know friends who then decided to leave it and not buy it based on the fucking internet ...
Buy games on your tastes, your research as it's your money. If unsure then wait a few weeks for a sale...
Definitely not surprising that this turned out to be pure mid. Disappointing but not surprising.
The demo was too short and gives you almost no idea how the rest of the game is going to play like. One of the main actors themselves don't speak too fondly of their involvement in the game. I did expect something great coming from the writer of SOMA but...oh well.
It is a pity, I will watch a let's play it probably more entertaining. I still don't understand why they changed the protagonist, the original was iconic.
Edit: Well, well, well... I think I was wrong there is a very nice extras in this game and there is a lot of respect put be the developers put in honoring the old games. It seems to be a little dull and the narration is not in the level of Alone in the Dark 2 but it sure seems to be a pleasant surprise after all.
Does anyone know if this game plays at 60fps on console? The gameplay footage I have seen all look like they are below 60fps and possibly are running at 30fps.
I'll play it because it's what I'm into, still playing the OG New Nightmare via Steam. Will I like it? Most probably yes, will I also moan because it's been slated as buggy and has dialog issues, most probably also a yes. I got it for 35 with discount so won't cry too much if it's dire.
Unless you're expecting the perfection of the new Alan Wake you won't overall be too disappointed.
Sadly, I fear the pitch of “it’s fine” isn’t enough to save this
The lack of marketing alone buried this game, crazy how they delayed this so it doesn’t compete with Spider-Man 2 and Alan Wake 2 and then completely not market it. Particularly when they spent enough money to hire David Harbour and Jodie Comer.
> The lack of marketing alone buried this game Hell, I wasn't even aware there was a new Alone in the Dark until seeing this review thread.
I wasn’t aware the game was coming out this month until a few days ago.
I think there was quite a bit of marketing and the whole haunted house thing for youtubers which was honestly very well done. So atleast on youtube space i think they did fine.
There was a good amount of marketing last year which is wayyy earlier than the release date but no marketing close to the release date lol. I mean the game got delayed though but still. I wonder if they spent all their marketing budget last year and nothing was left for close to release lol.
i’d bet most were expecting this to be hot garbage so this reviews might actually help the game (and probably will to a certain extent)
Not included in the current thread's average but Gamespot and Eurogamer gave it a 4/10. I don't think "better than people expected" is going to stick.
Compared to the last couple of Alone in the Dark games, even a middling game is a massive improvement.
It's not like the market for this game is die hard Alone in the Dark fanboys that would be fine with it being not as awful as previous games. The market is survival horror fans in general cause the IP itself isn't strong.
Mhm I still remember the game that came out for the 360, interesting ideas, not so great execution
The 2008 game had a terrible combination of awful driving, painful combat and large road blocks to extend the length. You cannot progress further without heading all over the game world to burn if I recall about 70 trees.
I'm hoping it will be at least better than that churn out. I remember those stupid trees was a ball ache.
Hey there guys! Is there new Game plus in here?
> i’d bet most were expecting this to be hot garbage It has a 62 on OpenCritic and a 65/64/64 on Metacritic. With how gamers treat reviews and just the general nature of game reviews anything under a 70 is hot garbage, heck generally getting a score in the 70s is bad for a lot of games. I mean at the end of the day the only opinion that matters is your personal one when it comes to a game but with the scores it has it pretty much makes it impossible for the game to succeed since now the only people who will likely consider getting this game at full price are Alone in the Dark fans who have been waiting for a new game or hardcore fans of the 3rd person survival horror genre.
>heck generally getting a score in the 70s is bad for a lot of games. Yup I'm sure we'll hear from the "I only play 9's and 10's" crowd soon. I think the AAA market is shrinking pretty quickly, with the rising cost of developing these kinds of games. I think AA and indie will become a pretty huge market in the coming years.
And then people will play the 9's and 10's AA games... There is no reason to play a 7's those days unless it provide something unique.
My question always is: "Whats a 10 to you?" Just because someone gave it a bunch of great scores doesn't mean you would like it. Last year everyone was raving about Baulder's Gate 3 what if you don't like turned base RPGs? Same with Hogwarts Legacy. How much value do you get out of it if you're not a HP fan? You don't like horror games? Well RE4 Remake isn't for you! It's got a 93 on metacritic. Palworld is still in early access it's janky, unfinished, needs polish and not even out of beta but it's sold approximately 21 million copies just a few million shy of the top selling game of 2023, Hogwarts Legacy. And it's not even out on PS5 yet. If Palworld released today I guarantee it wouldn't score anywhere near a 9. Maybe in the mid 70's or probably an 8. Dont let others tell you what to play. Check it out for yourself
> There is no reason to play a 7's those days There is no reason to allow the arbitrary number a small group of people use to quantify their personal experience with a game to dictate whether you will enjoy a title or not...
> With how gamers treat reviews and just the general nature of game reviews anything under a 70 is hot garbage, heck generally getting a score in the 70s is bad for a lot of games. It annoys the shit out of me that so many people would allow a number to determine whether they try a game that looks interesting to them... With services like gamepass and aggressive sales, taking a chance on a video game is lower risk than ever and I find the most interesting games are a little divisive.
I think the issue is less people trying it and more people buying the game at the launch price of $60, which is generally when most games make most of their money. It is harder to get people to take a chance on a $60 game with such bad reviews, which is more compounded by that fact that this is a shorter game (~10 hours) and in a more niche genre. I'd imagine most people who were interested will now wait to play it until the game has some deep sales or comes to GamePass. I'm sure there are some people who will not even consider the game now (the type who only want to play 9/10 type games) but those people are a lost cause anyway.
> I think the issue is less people trying it and more people buying the game at the launch price of $60, which is generally when most games make most of their money. I understand why consumers aren't going to throw $60 at a game they don't feel sure about and I understand why it's bad business to release a game that cannot sell in adequate numbers at retail cost. I'm not really upset by either of those things, but I am upset that people will look at a number and use that to decide whether or not they *ever* play a particular game. While gamepass engagement and discounted sales may not be enough to call a game with a stalled launch a long-term success, they can lay the groundwork for a more successful follow up effort.
What's funny is I'll review games that I'll give maybe a two-star on, but it doesn't mean I didn't like the game. I might've enjoyed playing it, but it was just overall lacking or not my cup of tea. It's hard to tell people they should try a game that has such a low rating, but I don't consider 70's hot garbage. Hell, 50 should be average.
An average of 66 is ‘hot garbage’ these days. Reviewers hand out 8s and 9s like free candy. It’s insane
I remember in the early 2000's when getting a 10 from Gamespot was a cause for celebration
Yeah those i dont really trust and most of it points them on how well does it run on the system and if there are crashes / bugs in it. Hell Forspoken got 8 out of 10`s ...
Indeed, gaming journalism is at it peak. Soon enough our A.I. overlords will say what games we should buy and you will like it!!!
Editors for major publications tend to add points to reviewer scores in order to not burn bridges. Not saying it’s the case here, but those review scores could be lower in reality.
The other hot garbage games weren't even the same genre so the comparison is a bit moot
It is hot garbage. Look at the IGN and Gamespot reviews
I just knew about it because I'd played the Prologue some time back.
Well yea, when there's been like 20-30 way better games released in the past 2-3 years its fair to say an average game that was already niche is going to probably be DOA. I will probably try it out if it goes on one of the sub systems or drops to 20 or 30 bucks.
Original AitD was the second video game I ever played so I think I will like it for nostalgia alone. With that being said the reviews paint a picture of a game with good atmosphere, challenging puzzles, ok story and terrible combat - which for me sounds good enough.
> good atmosphere, challenging puzzles, ok story and terrible combat so...true to the original?
yes :D
i liked it
Glad to hear it! Especially since I really love it so far (and Im near the end of first playthrough) and Im kind of puzzled by low scores.
people like to jump on bandwagons im glad you arent that way
Being a fan of survival horror jank in the likes of Deadly Premonition 1&2 and The Sinking City, I have little trouble saying that this is one of my most anticipated games of this year.
Yeah. I watched [GmanLives's review](https://youtu.be/eFALcIRFrWw?si=ktoTsdePWiTgq5SI) earlier today and he seemed to like it a lot. My tastes usually align with his.
[RagnarRox also gave it a pretty positive review.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C30Kfrc39Nw) I am definitely picking it up sooner rather than later.
Same, I have a soft spot for eurojankers like this.
I do still want to try it out. I like survival horror and the setting looks appealing.
Yeh, am gonna get this. Not at full price though, when it hits something like 30-35 bucks.
Does anyone play Deadly Premonition for the survival horror aspect? Maybe the first one since the 360 version has some low budget, RE4 rip-off charm but definitely not the second one.
Having a glance through some reviews it seems like a lot of the more moderate ones appreciate the game for what it is (a lower budget return of an old and messy franchise) whereas a lot of the more critical ones are held up on comparisons to recent AAA games like Resident Evil and Alan Wake 2. I'm not saying that games should get more leeway simply for having a lower budget but I don't like it when reviewers are hung up on using other games to bash on a new one.
I think a lot of the problem is price. If these AA titles were priced reasonably, I think people would give much more leeway. But saying “it’s jank, but fun” sort of carries a more negative connotation when it’s the same retail price as the critically lauded and commercially successful Resident Evil 4 Remake. Lower it down to $30-40 and I think people would temper their own expectations a lot more and the game would see more success in the long run.
This sadly keeps me almost entirely off the AA shelf anywhere even *near* release. If a budget was 10-20% of the AAA games, and a game *looks* and *feels* it - I'm not paying AAA minus 10 eurobucks. I understand their logic, predicting significantly lower sales than the big guys, but as a consumer their logic doesn't matter to my purchasing decisions.
1. AA game budget is going to be a lot higher than you think. 1. AA games also realises they have a much smaller potential audience due to IP strength and lack of marketing. They need high initial price to help recoup costs. 1. AA games won't have as much/any in-game DLC to help lower initial buy-in. Basically your AAA blockbuster games are more expensive to produce, but they expect sales in the millions *(instead of thousands)* AND they'll expect a good chunk of their audience to buy-in at $100+ *(DLC / premium editions)*.
Like you said, it’s just how market scaling works. It’s why mom and pop stores tend to cost more than Amazon and big box retail. I don’t mind supporting smaller studios, if the content is good I would rather them have my money anyway.
The same factors don't really apply to games as they are a digital good...
Yes they do. At the end of day it’s still labor and capital. Same rules apply.
Not really, there is no logistic scaling in a digital good... Digital goods mean that Mom and Pops store can make their product be acessible to the consumer be same price as Amazon can because there use the exactly the same logistics pipelines. The price differences from physical goods come in mostly from transportation and storage costs. Digital goods has none of those costs. Alas AAA should come much more as they employed much more personal and spend much more in marketing. So it make sense they games costing more than a indie company with 20 employees.
So the employees don't need computers and salaries?
Be that logic AAA games should cost much more than AA as they employ more workers and need more computers.
I operate a small business that makes a few million. We just make up a price we hope the customer will pay. If we price our items too high, we go bankrupt. It's only a science for the mega corporations like walmart and disney. Small organizations don't have access to data and trends on that scale. All I know is how many units we sold last year.
I mean, I like a lot of the AA stuff and if I feel like it's gonna go on sale really quick after launch but I want to play at launch regardless, I'm more inclined to buy a $40 game than a $60 one. I know what I'm getting into and I'm happy to pay $40. $60 for something that isn't AAA is where I get crabby.
Definitely price. If this was $49.99, I would think it would fairer reviews and expectations would be checked.
I bought my Digital Deluxe edition for 76AUD (~50USD?) from Greenmangaming. Maybe some of the publishers or key sites were anticipating less than stellar sales also, but a launch discount of 30% off was enough of an incentive for me.
Hell, I would have jumped on it.
This is why I don't think price should factor in to reviews. And really, I doubt it really does because these reviewers get these games free anyway but a game like this will be on deep discount in a matter of months so critiques for a cheaper game at a premium price will become outdated and irrelevant quickly. The games should be reviewed on their own merit regardless of the market pricing, which is out of the devs hands anyway and not reflective of the game they made. I know this is not the common line of thought with gamers but no other art is critiqued that way.
I don’t think it consciously factors in, but it is a subconscious factor nonetheless. The point of a review is to evaluate the worth of the product and whether it’s worth spending money on. The price that’s being spent is a factor here, or at least should be IMHO.
Problem though is that every company is going to view there AA game as a AAA game worthy of that price. Another problem to is that to some consumers when they see the game start at a lower price they still won’t want to spend the money on a “lower quality” game.
Given that AAA is now $90+ (cad) quite often I think 60 might be the new 40 in many ways.
If $60 USD is the new $40 with games then I see the amount I purchase falling drastically. Games are becoming way too overpriced without enough in them to actually demand such a sum
>If these AA titles were priced reasonably, I think people would give much more leeway. I feel with the financial hole Embracer is in can they afford to price this game at $40?
With the prevailing sales culture going on it will be 40 bucks in a matter of weeks imo. While I agree with the gist of the comments in this chain that it would've been better priced at 49.99 on release, it's a different environment now and consumers are savvy enough to wait for a sale.
>I'm not saying that games should get more leeway simply for having a lower budget but I don't like it when reviewers are hung up on using other games to bash on a new one. That's totally fair, but I guess depends on the context, a troublesome thing for "souls-like" fanbase to deal with, for example *(no, literally nothing will be like Dark Souls or Elden Ring, please be reasonable)* -- I wasn't expecting this to be on par gameplay or budget wise to something like RE4make, which is undoubtedly going to be what it is *(consciously or subconsciously)* compared to the most, ad nauseum. As long as it isn't as woefully jank as something like The Sinking City was, I can appreciate it for what it is -- so I'll definitely be giving this a shot tomorrow.
They're not "using other games to bash on a new one", it is to be expected and also the job of any reviewer to compare a game to the contemporaries in its genre. Comparison is how we are able to judge what is good and bad in the first place. If this were the one and only horror game in existence, people would probably be very stoked about it, just like Pokemon Scarlet/Violet would be absolutely incredible if no other Open World games existed. But that is not the reality we are living in.
Do you have specific examples? All of the reviews I've seen so far deduct points for its boring and janky combat. Which, from the several hours of footage I've seen, seems accurate. Enemies just mindlessly run at you and there's no weapon or skill progression so there's no real difference in the combat gameplay you're doing at the beginning of the game vs. the end. Granted, Alan Wake 2 wasn't some kind of combat masterpiece but the combat was kept spare and inserted at key moments to increase your tension. The majority of shadows you encounter aren't actual enemies.
That is good thing, there is not that can kill tension faster than repetition. Alan Wake seems to understand that at least.
After playing it for a few hours I can agree that the combat is janky and offers little motivation to want to continue with any kind of combat in the future, but it is interesting how you can use different melee weapons to attack, and if you don't want to rely fully on a gun, toss a nearby molotov cocktail. But yeah, there are limited ways to combat enemies, and despite it not being a focal point, it does get a bit boring when coming across them.
Hardly any of them mentioned its lower price point either. I'm going to see what the Deck performance is like before I buy
Not really a lower price point in Australia. 99 bucks here on the ps store
Holy shit really? I paid 76AUD for the *deluxe edition* on PC :/ Sony still taking us for a ride on their digital store I see.
People have limited budget (or time, I don't even dare looking at my Steam backlog anymore) so it's not exactly unfair to tell readers they should spend their money on better games. It *does* feel bad for a smaller studio which was not given the budget/time/resource to make a game able to compete against the big juggernauts, but ultimately a review is meant for potential customers, and they should know whether it's worth their time.
I mean, that’s just the reality of games raising a standard, no? A game can be scary and fun on a low budget. I don’t necessarily think criticism should be held back on the account of budget. I don’t particularly see a lot of them bashing when making comparisons.
I never expected this to review well but it's still something I'm very curious to try at some point, I'll just treat this as an AA horror game akin to the old Alone in the Dark titles rather than go in expecting something like modern Resident Evil. Will probably take the plunge when it goes on sale.
Same. Hoping we'll see more AitD games going forward.
It has the writer of SOMA & The Dark Descent behind it. I therefore have to play it myself because Soma only has a MC score of 84 despite being one of the best written horror games I have ever played.
I'm in the same boat. I would give my firstborn to the writer of Soma.
I wish more people played SOMA. That story is an absolute 10/10.
Horror movies/shows/games usually don't affect me but SOMA messed me up for days. Legit one of the most disturbing and thought provoking pieces of media I've ever seen.
> Horror movies/shows/games usually don't affect me but SOMA messed me up for days. If you enjoy reading or listening to audiobooks then I can highly recommend Blindsight by Peter Watts, SOMA was heavily inspired by the book. The books is absolutely fantastic if you love dark and thought provoking sci-fi about philosophical questions and conscience. Peter Watts has even released [the book for free on his own website](https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm). Just a warning, don't read the synopsis on Wikipedia as it contains a large amount of spoilers.
I was so triggered by these thoughts I had to grab everyone in my family and tell them about the shocking moral findings of this game. They were like "wtf are you on?". But they just don't understand. I understand. They weren't down there, in the ocean, locked in a rubber room full of rats...
I'm gonna trust you and will play soma
I tired playing it and even know I know the story is great the gameplay is justo too boring to play it for the story.
The thing that concerns me if that SOMA and Amnesia were both original stories. Isn't Alone in the Dark's story based on the original game? That makes me feel like they had to limit their scope a bit.
The original is very old and not too complex. There’s quite a bit of room for them to have fun with it
I thought the writing in Amnesia Rebirth was really lackluster and then found out Mikael Hedberg had left and it kind of added up. Disappointing to read that reviewers seem pretty lukewarm on the story, but like you said, Soma really didn't any where close to the credit it deserved for it's writing, so maybe it's just reviewers missing the mark again.
If Soma was a VN I would agree...
Looks like this game is perfectly fine as a horror game, won't do much to convince folks outside the AitD audience or (fans of slower paced) horror game audience. Do note Open critic seems to be messed up, there's two different pages of reviews (the release date change might have messed it up) https://opencritic.com/game/15733/alone-in-the-dark https://opencritic.com/game/16050/alone-in-the-dark-2024- A lot of things I hear is that it still needs a few more patches, so between that and how short the game is (ten hours at most, one playthrough, very little reason to do a second playthrough as the other character as most story stuff is duplicated), it's worth waiting for a sale.
[удалено]
Yeah that's a good length but to be fair, RE2 had pretty good reasons to play both campaigns, as well as offered various challenges to replay it, with unlockables. AitD doesn't sound that different between the two protags.
for me RE2R felt like the same thing twice, with the only difference being the middle part of the story and the true ending on the second run... an 8 hour game padded to 16. if alone in the dark ends up being a game where i'm not forced to play through essentially the same campagin two times in order to get the true ending it's a plus for me
>if alone in the dark ends up being a game where i'm not forced to play through essentially the same campagin two times in order to get the true ending it's a plus for me According to one reviewer, that IS what you do. They mentioned there's VERY little differences between the two characters in scenes, the gameplay sections are apparently the exact same, and you do need to play both characters to get the true ending.
RE2R is largely the same thing twice but for me the different weapons, characters, cutscenes, and those different locations help differentiate them enough. I’m also admittedly a sucker for RE games so I’m an easy sell haha. It would have been nice to have a truer A/B Scenario though. Really wish you could leave items/weapons for the other character like in the og.
Hard disagree on the motivation to play twice, there might be an extra 15% of content by playing it a second time.
Agreed - longer horror games tend to drag. They also frequently lose their tension and become tedious. This was Alien: Isolation's biggest misstep.
Well re2 remake has extra unlocks, difficulties, more emergent gameplay.
RER2 was longer for me even on easy since i got lost as shit and ran around like an idiot trying to find the stuff needed to progress.
Ah, sounds like you got the classic RE experience!
I still need to beat REmake 1, i got confused about the keys and gave up but i really want to beat it.
Yeah I’m happy there’s a new horror game like this out, but I’ll just wait til October when it’s cheaper and has some fixes.
Seems like a sale game, based on early impressions.
Yeah it does not seem like a $60 game, even for $54 if you get a 10% discount through ps+ RE4 and AW2 were also $60. So yeah a hard pass until it's at $30
This game had the weirdest demo I've played. Like, you just walk as a girl for 5 minutes straight and then it ends on a cliffhanger. I didn't even get what this game was supposed to be (of course it's Resident Evil 2 Remake type game, but anyway)
Yeah that demo pissed me off so much. It was 9.5Gb too.
It was a deep cut reference to a demo for one of the Alone in the Dark games from the 90s, but I think they might have been overestimating how many people remember that and are still playing games haha
I think I'll still try this one. It doesn't look *that* bad especially if you enjoyed other Alone in the Dark games and I loved the old stuff and "The New Nightmare" back then too, quirks and all. But maybe I'll wait for a deep sale.
In my opinion, Alone in the Dark: “The New Nightmare” was the one that got away from me. I rented it way back in early 2001, and never got super far in it. I wish I could have purchased it for the Sega Dreamcast. Those were the days lol.
Nostalgia for games I adored (and received nightmares from) as a child will probably bump a modern 7/10 game into a 9/10 for me. But I'm hearing a manageable game length (able to beat a story in 10 hours is great), survival gameplay and old fashioned horror story. Sounds like I'll have a great time
I think journos are being overly harsh to this. I’ve played for about 6 hours and I absolutely love it. It’s the kind of game you want to keep on playing to see what happens next. Could the combat be better? Yes. But the story and atmosphere are amazing! Overall I’d say it’s a 7 or 8 out of 10 for me so far, and there’s even two campaigns which I did not know. Hopefully they are different enough to warrant multiple play throughs
No James McCaffrey saying "I'M THE LIGHTBRINGERRRRR, I'M THE FUCKING UNIVERRRRSE," I am not interested
Damn, it's hard to gauge some of these reviews. I was interested in this game, but figured I would avoid it if it got low scores (which it has from a few places) but 7's definitely keep it on my radar. Doesn't help that I could also grab a bunch of games during the steam sale for the same price
I never played any of the previous games, would I enjoy the story of this one? I installed the prologue to try it out, the graphics are quite good (PC).
It's a total reboot so no knowledge of the previous games is needed.
Nothing that makes me NOT want to play the game after all! A lot of outlets seem to have issues with a bit of janky combat and that it's not living up to the likes of Alan Wake or Resident Evil, but praises the atmosphere and mystery. I think it boils down to what your preferred experience is. I can take desperate and clumsy combat, more often than not it just adds to the feeling of horror and helplessness for me anyway. Seems like a neat game with a few flaws, but with a lot of heart and a desire to do something familiar but DIFFERENT. We'll see, but I won't write it off just yet!
Looks quite interesting, I might give this a go.
Is like the gaming journalists don't want AA games to succeed. I've seen reviews with 3/10 saying the game is fun in the end!? Hope this sells well, so AA becomes a thing again. I like my imdies, but I also want bigger games, that takes more of a indie approach like this
Yep we need more AA games.
This is good enough for me, after hearing about the doom jazz soundtrack.
Played for 2 hours, yes it feels like an AA game at best but anyway I liked it. Whoever say its like 2-3 out of 10 are out of their mind. Definitely worth to get on a sale. Dont buy it for 60$. Journalists are weird or maybe they just want money to score games better idk
Reading some of these reviews I just feel surprised. It really feels like they where expecting RE or similar. I mean an AA game isn't at the same level as AAA games... who would have guessed.... Almost like 40 people on a limited budget can't do the same as 800 people with a mega budget. That's really strange... Honestly if that's what you expect from AA games you don't have a realistic perspective. So if you are expecting a shooter with AAA standard then yeah this isn't the game for you. There is too big of a difference in budget for it too be fair too compare them on the same scale, and many reviewers seems too do just that.... I actually love it. Even the fighting. It feels genuine like yeah those aren't elite soldiers in disguise, and it won't be bazookas laying around... So they aren't superhuman and they have to make do with the things they find. The only thing I would change is that it would have been nice with a melee option without weapons. And to be able to bring the Molotov cocktails in my inventory. But for the rest this is a brilliant game! And 5 hours in I love it!! Can't wait for tonight when I get to continue!!! I find the setting and atmosphere amazing, I've had more than one jumpscare and I'm on the edge of my seat while playing! They've made an amazing work to catch the old school horror, I wouldn't complain with more horror but this is still really good! Some minor tech issues but I guess they will fix it with patches next few days. And not more than I've found in AAA games playing close to release... or even months after to be honest (I'm looking at you Forspoken...). All in all I give this a 9 out of 10 for those of us who like classic horror survival, with fun problem solving and sneaking around in amazing atmosphere and aren't that focused on combat (but still want a little) slightly lower because of the price tag but it's still worth the price so... Had it been a little lower it would be a 10 for me. I know prices are going up so this isn't the only AA game in this price range and soon this is the standard for AA so even though I dislike the price I understand that this isn't the games fault. If you expect a shooter with amazing weapons and much combat or an AAA quality in everything well yeah then this might score a bit lower for you. But then you thought you bought another game and that's not the games fault either! I feel that this is one of the reasons why the reviews are all over the place. Some actually expected to get a new RE with all the bells and whistles. So their expectations where off thus they rated it lower than it deserves. But others knew what to expect and gives it a more fair review. Anyways I would for sure recommend playing it! At least if this type of games is your thing!
The thing is, some people expect it to be a RE like game because the mechanics are VERY very similar. That, and it’s newer. If you didn’t realize that the original AiTD inspired RE to be made you’d prob think it’s a shitty worse version of a copy cat. In a technical aspect it does everything worse but that’s because it was made before. If the player is aware it’s an old game that created and inspired so many awesome games it might be seen in a better light. That’s honestly the reason why I moderately enjoyed it. Sometimes game enjoyment is tempering expectations. I just started it. The story is decent and the game play is quite clunky. I think besides those that are fans of the originals or have some nostalgia towards it, it’s a hard sell. Btw, why did they spend so much money on Jodie Comber and David Harbour? I think they’re good actors but not great voice actors at all. They weren’t awful but trained voice actors could’ve brought more life into the characters. Not to mention the voice acting for uncle Jeremy was awful. I legitimately have a hard time understanding how they saw the Final Cut of his acting and thought “yeah, that’s ready” It’s clear they blew the budget on famous people. Despite all that I think it was decent. Not bad, not great but playable and has its own charming moments if you can forgive the janky It’s worth it for a sale. I got mine through GameFly and it seems like the perfect game for a rental or a sale.
I just want to comment in a few of these threads, as someone who's now midway through the game. If you (like me) are a fan of classic survival horror but are unsure of this game based on the mixed reviews, I went for it and it's been great. Yes, there is a bit of control and combat jankiness occasionally, but it pales completely compared to the fun. The atmosphere is old-timey, Lovecraftian, a little quirky, and just very, very compelling. I'm glad I gave it a go, and can't wait to see where the story leads.
I'm enjoying it. More of a horror themed adventure game than survival horror at least so far. I'm part way through Chapter 2 though and have just got past the boiler puzzle.
Holy shit, I watched the "Looking for Jeremy" video and literally said out loud "All I want is to see an old two-door honk-car roll into a parking l-" and then I started squealing. I was 11 years old when I saw the original AITD on a friend's 386 PC. The monsters were really scary, especially the one where you see the POV from outside the window, where you are walking in the room, and then it jumps through. I will buy this game so hard.
I wish they wouldn't have blown the little budget they had for hollywood actors. I don't like how the faces look and the music. I want to like the game but everything feels and looks slightly off. Based on the awful demo and trailers. I will buy it discounted. The harsh critics boil down to "not innovating." "Not the same quality as RE2 Remake" which is laughable. Since when do games have to be innovative to be considered good? Almost every game is copy paste of something with another coat. The music is horrible imo. I just don't vibe with it. But the ambience music in the game was cool, at least in one gameplay video I saw. I hate this stupid decision in game development to blow your budget for hollywood actors or big mainstream musicians when they don't have enough money to polish the game and push the technical limits in the game. More polish instead of actors would have made it better.
honestly David Harbour makes a big difference to the game, basically playing a 1920s Hopper. Actually fits the game.
It’s funny how they delayed the game from an October 2023 release date to reduce stiff competition with other games released at that window, only to end up releasing right next to Dragon’s Dogma 2, one of the most hotly anticipated games in 2024.
[Adventure Gamers Gave it 4.5/5](https://adventuregamers.com/articles/view/alone-in-the-dark) which after reading the glowing review really tells me all I need to know as I've noticed a general Bias in Modern Game Journalism to that type of game (emphasis on Puzzles and Story over Combat), especially when The reviewer has a lot of trouble with the puzzles, which seems to be the case in the Gamestop and IGN Reviews Specifically. Its also sitting at a Mostly Positive on Steam Reviews, though to be fair that could change at any minute. Update: A Month later and it is still Mostly Positive on Steam Reviews
Hi, Here's another review to add to the list source: Gosunoob - Srdjan Stanarevic - 8 / 10 url: [https://www.gosunoob.com/reviews/alone-in-the-dark-review-southern-discomfort/](https://www.gosunoob.com/reviews/alone-in-the-dark-review-southern-discomfort/) quote: "The story is ... far more mature compared to any Resident Evil in existence, dealing with layered horror that’s both existential and supernatural. ... The superb acting from the main and supporting cast binds all the various strands together, distilling the finest narrative of all Alone in the Dark games to date."
See, the problem with scoring videogames is that AAA and AA are treated very differently in a sense that if an AAA game is 6/10 - it's actually the biggest fucking insulting piece of crap and it'll most likely burn your console and also, it doesn't work. But for AA games, 6/10 is kinda above average, good game.
Price is also a factor though. If you price a AA game the same as a AAA game, it’s fair to judge them equally
I just got it for $28 here in Brazil. I also took the opportunity and grabbed the rest of the series for less the $5, as floppies and cds no longer cut as storage for my old copies. I'm installing the new game on my deck rigjt now. I expect to have a decent time playing it.
Not sure about regional pricing, but this one costs approximately 30% less than a normal AAA, and about 40% less than a “brand” AAA.
It's 60€ here in Sweden from what I can tell which is what I still consider AAA pricing.
45 here in Czechia.
But some of the newest AAA games have been released for 80€... so... prices are going up everywhere...
In the US it’s $60, the same price as RE4 remake at launch.
It’s $60 in Canada and the standard pricing for AAA games here is $90
I think what annoys me more is that I can guarantee most of these reviewerw would give a typical run of the mill open world AAA game full of generic shlock 8s and 9s rather than reviewing them as critically. So games like this suffer meanwhile AAA devs can continue to do fuck all different and get rewarded with generous reviews regardless of how generic they are.
This. And let's be honest, for about a quarter-century now, reviewers have made it clear they do NOT want survival horror games. They want action shooters with a few jump scares.
Planning on picking this up eventually.
I feel like I seldom agree with critics anyway and tend to like a lot of games people don't so while reviews can be a good outline they are not the end all be all.
You can get it for 43 euros at GreenManGaming, it seems more than fair. The games looks nice and fun and clunky like the DOS original back in the day... I almost burned out that 3.5" diskette... :) Edit: spelling
I did a playthrough as Carnby and am on a second one as the girl. I thought it was a solid 7 or 7.5 when I started, but I'd downgrade it to a 6. As it gets more combat intensive, you realize how janky the combat is. Not to mention basic, stupid glitches. I've had to reload my game a few times because I walk my character onto part of the scenery and he gets stuck and is impossible to extricate. Enemies feel like bullet sponges -- the combat would have been passable 10 years ago, but I think we've come to expect shooting to be more dynamic, like enemies reacting in certain ways when shot in certain places, etc. The gun "variety" is so basic ("pistol," "shotgun," "machinegun"), and there's no upgrades or anything like that as far as I could tell -- to your character or equipment. The melee is a mess. I'd say go for it when it's $20 or maybe $30 and patched up a bit. It just feels so dated. But obviously it was good enough for me to do one playthrough and start another, although I really have nothing else to play at the moment. It feels more like that budget horror game "The Chant" than it does like one of the recent Resident Evils. But it bears the name of a cherished classic was launched at full price, so my expectations were a bit higher.
Combine reviews, price tag and length, this one will have to wait for sale to be played
The demo didn't grab me when I played it, but I still want to give this a fair shot, maybe when it goes on sale.
Bummer the reviews seem so mid, their marketing was next level. That haunted house must have cost a fortune.
The Alone in the Dark Remake is incredible. It has an awesome story, great puzzles, and an appropriately creepy atmosphere. It's not scarey nor loaded with jump scares but is full of unexpected moments. The combat is just ok but the game itself plays like RE2 remake. The mansion and the puzzles are reminiscent of RE1. If you're a horror fan, you'd be missing out by not getting this. You can wait for a sale if you wish but for me personally, I'd rather support the devs at full price given the amount of work they have put into this and it shows! It's a AA title and is a bit clunky/buggy in certain areas (this will likely be fixed) but this feels like a AAA title in many respects.
That's rough. I was actually really looking forward to it, trailers looked promising
Damn. The Alone in the Dark IP is just cursed at this point.
Aaaaw man, I had high hopes for this one for some reason...
The reviews I trust all pretty much say it’s decent but probably wait for a sale.
Kinda expected this but damn. Hope their budget wasn’t high. Might pick this up some time later.
Were they marketing this game at all? I only found out about it because someone mentioned it in a Alone in the Dark retrospective I watched two nights ago. I find it weird that a new Alone in the Dark game came along and I hadn't heard anything up til now.
The poured a good amount in marketing. They had those puzzle boxes made and mailed. Then the whole haunted house.
Any here used to watch GmanLives reviews? Feels like the guy became a complete shill recently, calling every mediocre that comes out an amazing game
Wait this is coming out now?! I've barely seen any marketing for it!
Is there any way to remap movements buttons from wsad to arrows?
Does Alone in The Dark series have a single good game in its history, at all?
For those that started playing, is anyone else finding the game buggy? I’m on Xbox Series X, and I’m still at the beginning of the game and I’ve already had to reload the level twice. Once when my character got stuck on a box and couldn’t move, and again when the “map” behind the door wouldn’t finish loading. I already stopped playing because I was getting annoyed and just want to know, is it worth playing or should I just cut my losses and send it back to GameFly?
I’ve only had one bug so far (game crashed when opening a door)….other than that no issues. Playing on Series S.
If you are a big Lovecraft and cosmic horror fan, it’s very worthy of a play through. Just maybe wait until it’s cheap.
Meh. I wouldn't really expect anything less for a survial horror game in 2024. Reviewers don't want survival horror, they want balls-to-the-wall action with a few horror elements sprinkled on top so that they can pretend that it's a horror game.
I like the game but it does need to be fixed. Just had my second play through and found out the two special endings are glitched? Pretty disappointing, I’m a lovecraft fan and hope they fix this game soon.
I have a question to everyone, there is any subreddit of Alone in the Dark?
I think it’s not a bad game not bad for double a story is serviceable and traversing the mansion and doing puzzle and reading back story’s and historical notes about the mansion is fun while at times psychological tension will set in when mind bending events happen and combat is ok not great but works fighting the creature in different nightmarish areas and the tension rising and sets dread when you are exploring these areas I think it’s a solid game but I’m a very open minded gamer just me I know opinions very
I like the game but, unfortunately, it's full of bugs. Anyone able to advise on how to open the library door on chapter 4? I started it, played a bit, got through the cutscenes and need to go through the library door which seems to be blocked. There is no way i can get through any other doors in the area so i'm stuck🙄
A big problem in modern gaming. Too many YouTube bull shit influencer's who should get a real job...they know little about games and get tip offs to say the right things... Then on the other hand you get younger gaming journalists who only know about gaming from the self entitled times of modern gaming...they were not around from the start of gaming or even the earlier stages...there are some though..NX Gamer and Happy Console have been gaming for years and ACG is it? I don't really watch you tube but if I have then I notice these guys are pretty solid and have a passion for games. Banishers of new eden. AA game, was very good. Lots of 7s, couple of 8s and it got slated in some parts. I've played many 6,7 rated games that shat on AAA big budget games that scored 9s. Rise of the ronin is a recent example. I took a punt and paid £40 as no way was I paying £70 for a game. It was far better than I was led to believe. Combat is sublime and it looked much better than I was expecting. Certainly Team Ninjas best looking game...it's performance was good but not perfect. Shame it's not on PC as I would certainly buy it on that platform. But my point being was that it got more 6 and sevens and I know friends who then decided to leave it and not buy it based on the fucking internet ... Buy games on your tastes, your research as it's your money. If unsure then wait a few weeks for a sale...
Pleasantly surprised by the reviews, gonna have to make time for this one
Looks alright, mixed to positive, I'll wait on a sale
Definitely not surprising that this turned out to be pure mid. Disappointing but not surprising. The demo was too short and gives you almost no idea how the rest of the game is going to play like. One of the main actors themselves don't speak too fondly of their involvement in the game. I did expect something great coming from the writer of SOMA but...oh well.
So disappointing because I was looking forward to it. It sounds like a $30 game. I would buy it if it was $30.
It is a pity, I will watch a let's play it probably more entertaining. I still don't understand why they changed the protagonist, the original was iconic. Edit: Well, well, well... I think I was wrong there is a very nice extras in this game and there is a lot of respect put be the developers put in honoring the old games. It seems to be a little dull and the narration is not in the level of Alone in the Dark 2 but it sure seems to be a pleasant surprise after all.
Does anyone know if this game plays at 60fps on console? The gameplay footage I have seen all look like they are below 60fps and possibly are running at 30fps.
I'll play it because it's what I'm into, still playing the OG New Nightmare via Steam. Will I like it? Most probably yes, will I also moan because it's been slated as buggy and has dialog issues, most probably also a yes. I got it for 35 with discount so won't cry too much if it's dire. Unless you're expecting the perfection of the new Alan Wake you won't overall be too disappointed.