/vr/ - Retro Games

>>8199707
I remember that specific screenshot making me want to play the game. Begin a massive resident evil fan at the time, but holy shit that game is awful. I must admit that I also played it for like an hour and a half. Tried it three times and just never got into it. If it was really that good you would've heard more about it.

Are there any major differences between each version?

>>8199957
Not really besides resolution afaik

It's good, not great. As far as AITD/RE style survival horror games are concerned that aren't RE/SH/DC; it's one of the better ones, but only because it's a genre filled with broken crap.

>>8199948
You are actually wrong since the game is surpisingly good, the atmosphere is especially on point.

Alone In The Dark - Starring Revolver Ocelot

I liked it, but I admit that for most people it really won’t click. Dug the setting and mythology, but the soundtrack and combat were weak.
Also I think the PC version is borked, I feel like audio is better in the PS1 version compared to the one on GOG.

only worth playing on game boy color

Are any of the AitD games actually good? That whole series seems like it's much better in theory than it ever was in execution.

>>8201096
Yes, 1 is a masterpiece. 2 is absurdly hard (inb4 filtered) but the atmosphere is still great. 3 is fun too.
I have played it long ago, but I liked it more than Resident Evil. The puzzles made more sense, it felt more like trying to make sense of what was going on in a haunted house, rather than a puzzle being there for the sake of being a puzzle.

>>8199957
console ports are terrible, camera changing loading times are atrocious

GOG version is the best by far, looks sharp, high res, remappable gamepad binds and everything. It's a very good looking game that suffers from a few fatal flaws - in-game files are way too fucking long to read, it kills all pacing the game would otherwise have. And second - enemies respawn so it gets tedious.

It's worth playing for the atmosphere and visuals.

>>8201401
>1 is a masterpiece
I would call the first one an amazing achievement in terms of the technical conception and execution, but the overarching and individual puzzle design is pretty rudimentary. The unlimited save-anywhere feature defuses much of the immersion and sense of peril, and the random nature of the puzzles is obviously hit and miss.

It's a shame how directionless the series ended up being; the action focus of the second one takes away most of the charm, and the third one was a pretty big missed opportunity for me since I love Weird West shit. The New Nightmare just came off as a spineless RE clone even if it began with good ideas behind it (not to mention heavy-hitting talent on the writing and art side).

The "red pill" here is that Capcom was 100% out of line for not properly crediting the influence of the original AitD as a template for Resident Evil (making up a bullshit PR story about the inspiration to boot), BUT in the end they were able to streamline and focus the framework into a true well-crafted classic on every level, something that Infogrames just couldn't manage.

>>8202680
>the action focus of the second one takes away most of the charm

When you think about it even AITD2 was ahead of its time, because it was trying to be what games like Dino Crisis 2 and Onimusha ended up being.

Point is if done right the action orientation could have worked. But yes, it sucked because of a greedy publisher pushing out shit sequels as quick as possible for money

>>8202680
>but the overarching and individual puzzle design is pretty rudimentary
No, they're a lot better than in any RE game. They feel a lot more natural and down to earth, they're not puzzles for the sake of puzzles.
>The unlimited save-anywhere feature defuses much of the immersion and sense of peril
Are you kidding? This game is full of fail states and insta-kills, you'll never know when things will go or have gone wrong. The unlimited saves really don't feel out of place, the player will have to experiment a lot if they want to survive this game, and that's where the sense of peril comes from.
>the random nature of the puzzles is obviously hit and miss.
Yes they feel so random on the first playthrough, and that's what I love about them, nothing in this game is remotely normal. However you could figure out yourself how to solve every puzzle, there are always clues somewhere and your intuition to rely on.
>the second one takes away most of the charm
The 2nd game is better than the 1st in many ways. Some of the puzzles sucked and were impossible to figure out without a guide, but it's truly survival horror to the core. It's got so much combat with awful controls, yes, but most of the combat could be avoided by solving a few puzzles and/or relying on your intuition. It's like an early 20th century cosmic horror meets Die Hard, there's really nothing like it.
>BUT in the end they were able to streamline and focus the framework into a true well-crafted classic on every level, something that Infogrames just couldn't manage.
RE games feel like action games crafted for the casual console masses. These games are streamlined, but also watered down and have lost what made Alone in the Dark so great. They're full of combat too, and this time you can avoid combat by simply running past the enemies,. No more AitD1's experimental puzzles and brooding and twisted atmosphere, or AitD2's Die Hard bravado, all you get is a Romero derivative with more action than adventure.

>>8202594
>in-game files are way too fucking long to read
That's a series staple though. Some files are like 30 pages plus.

>>8202745
It's peculiar given the carbon-copy engine basics of AitD and RE, but they've got quite different overall design approaches going, so it's fine to favor one over the other based on your preferences without having that much of a strict overlap to really make an objective comparison.

I think the main problem of AitD -in terms of finding a wider audience at the time or retaining lasting appeal- was the point-and-click adventure sensibilities of the puzzle design. It all can get very specific and vignette-ish: "escape the room" stuff (like distracting the zombies with the cooking pot or using the jar of water to put off the cursed ashtray or whatever) represent the game at its least interesting in my opinion, while more grounded things like moving furniture to prevent monsters getting into the room are the most compelling -- though the deeper you get into the game the less frequent that sort of thing is and most of the scenarios boil down to finding the correct item to use to overcome a particular situation. The last part of the game is honestly the most misguided, basically becoming an Indiana Jones-esque action gauntlet down in the caves (it even gets its own subset of actions/controls iirc) though the core engine and gameplay as implemented are just not optimized for that.

Resident Evil presents a more homogeneous basic experience: monster killing framed by going around carrying out simple tasks -with the occasional riddle- based on a more restrained set of factors and mechanics (i.e. locked doors mostly). But the key difference is the survival presented as a sustained, overarching concern: resource management plays a more pressing role, and players need to evaluate whether to register a checkpoint (which are ALSO a limited resource) or not, based on how much has been invested to make progress. Conversely, AitD is more of a network of standalone situations to be survived "individually", with the ammo and lamp oil rationing being a minor extra concern.

>>8202990
>point-and-click adventure sensibilities
It's a better design philosophy for a game of this genre.
>(like distracting the zombies with the cooking pot or using the jar of water to put off the cursed ashtray or whatever) represent the game at its least interesting
That distracting zombies with a pot of meat is really intuitive and could be skipped by the player. I agree with the cigar enemy though, I don't think it was explained anywhere inside the game how you could beat it. I'm not complaining about that enemy itself though, it was seriously terrifying, but there should've been more clue of what you're supposed to do. It's one of those enemies that could only be beaten with trial and error, that's where the saving everywhere feature becomes handy, the game is still suspenseful even with it.
>retaining lasting appeal
It has a high lasting appeal because of just how cryptic and twisted it is. I mean, people nowadays praise dark souls for having a cryptic level design that was intended to be beaten with internet guides. I'm not sure why Alone in the Dark doesn't have the same appeal, in my opinion it's even more cryptic and appealing than DS.
>most of the scenarios boil down to finding the correct item to use to overcome a particular situation
And that's more natural than any puzzle found in the PS1 survival horror games. Puzzles should be about overcoming obstacles with a given set of tools and your wit, and not puzzles for the sake of puzzles. SH1 riddles object sliding puzzles really feel game-y and take away your immersion.
>Resident Evil presents a more homogeneous basic experience: monster killing framed by going around carrying out simple tasks -with the occasional riddle- based on a more restrained set of factors and mechanics (i.e. locked doors mostly)
That's why it makes little sense why they retained the same tank controls. It was a shallow copy, RE designers didn't truly understand why AitD had tank controls.

>>8199707
The way they pulled off dynamic backgrounds and lighting on the PS1 is really cool, but it feels like a budget title from beginning to end unfortunately. Not sure about PS2/PC but it seems to have vastly superior graphics and resolution so I'd go with that nowadays.

>>8202990
>>8203047
cont
RE games have always felt more action than puzzle thanks to the homogenous design, the tank controls is out of place and the puzzles feels like a shallow side content, and thus RE4 was a natural evolution of the series.
>But the key difference is the survival presented as a sustained, overarching concern: resource management plays a more pressing role, and players need to evaluate whether to register a checkpoint (which are ALSO a limited resource) or not, based on how much has been invested to make progress.
>AitD is more of a network of standalone situations to be survived "individually", with the ammo and lamp oil rationing being a minor extra concern.
That doesn't make RE more of a survival game. Resource management isn't the only aspect of survival, improvisation, adapting to situations, and using your common sense are too. Also, neither of those are minor concerns. Yes their usage is situational, but those situations are frequent enough to give the player a sense of suspense. Especially if you didn't pick up the sword from the moving medieval armor.

>>8202680
>>8202745
>The unlimited saves really don't feel out of place
Also the limited saves is console bullshit. On PC it was normal to have free saves in every game.
>SH1 riddles object sliding puzzles really feel game-y and take away your immersion.
Yeah, that's my feeling too. Which is too bad because all the rest is great.

>>8202990
RE1 wouldn't exists without the designers playing AitD 1.

>>8203067
I don't agree with much of what you say but I admire your passion for AitD.

>>8199707
I got filtered by the puzzles
didn't help that my english wasn't very good at the time

>>8203115
>Also the limited saves is console bullshit. On PC it was normal to have free saves in every game.
free quicksaves turn every game into trial and error luck fests. it's bad enough in an actuib where you can save after killing every enemy. even worse in a horror game where the minimal tension is completely erased because you now expect to die several times in every room before happening upon the solution
>durrr just don't save so much!
yes, the game should limit you from saving too much

>>8203296
Limited saves are tedious. To retry to solve one puzzle you have to replay different previous ones until you arrive to the one you're stuck, and this breaks tension too.

>>8199707
I tried playing it. The dog wounding animation where you paralyze their lower legs made me not want to play it.

>>8199707
The pseudo 3D real time lighting on 2D backdrops is based, but I was always bored by it.

>>8202745
The fact that the game is so full of random and unknowable deaths that it requires save scumming (which takes away from the horror) seems like something of a fundamental flaw to me.

>>8203047
>people nowadays praise dark souls for having a cryptic level design that was intended to be beaten with internet guides.
That's not true though. Dark Souls level design is very simple. The game has a lot of secrets and strategies that you're not going to know right away, but none of that is required to simply get through.

>>8201083
Based

>>8203182
I've been into it since I was 13 or something. I'm deeply in love with the way this game is written and designed.

>>8204853
Even when you had to curl into a ball to be transported back to that first dungeon?

>>8205991
You never have to do that. It's a secret.