Survival horror games walk a fine line. When too frantic, they devolve into simple action games. When too measured, they feel more like technology demos than games. Alone in the Dark tries to resuscitate one of the earliest survival horror games, with only mixed success.
The game is fabulously ambitious. Every possible gesture on the controller is pregnant with different command possibilities. The world is stuffed with objects that break, shatter, catch on fire, and peril lurks around every corner. Yet, though the concept is ambitious, the execution is muddled. Every time Edward Carnby, the protagonist, drunkenly walks into yet more peril instead of smartly dispatching it, you’ll feel the urge to hurl your controller at your expensive TV.
As Carnby, you wander through a nightmare landscape of New York, specifically Central Park, meeting a huge variety of characters, most of whom are gruesomely dispatched shortly thereafter. You’re not so much alone in the dark as simply grumpily antisocial in the dark. The game decides to make the most of its “M” rating by having the protagonists curse as much as possible, even when it doesn’t really fit the script.
The best horror games — and, yes, I’m thinking of Silent Hill 2 — build tension by suggestion and hint of threat, rather than by simply trying to imperil you constantly. Alone in the Dark opts for starting off the game by putting you in an elevator, on fire, electrocuting you while being devoured by creatures from another dimension who create zombies that stab your eyes out while shooting at you. Then the game tries to maintain that intensity continuously for the entire time you are playing. I didn’t find this to be exciting: I found it to simply be exhausting, and, to be frank, it simply wasn’t much fun.
Read original article
Forums
