I'll comment a bit on horror in a moment, but let me talk about the game first.
I remember seeing Alone in the Dark at a local computer shop back when the game was first released. I want to say that I saw it on CD-ROM, but it could be that CD-ROM had just become available at the time. Either way, I was impressed. I was mostly buying Sierra games at the time, so Alone in the Dark didn't really get much financial consideration. I would simply watch the gameplay while I was at the store. It was (still is) a Mom & Pop computer store, and that made the experience a lot more fun.
Alone in the Dark is one of those games that has atmosphere. Can I be bold and say that people shouldn't feel the need to make an excuse for the graphics? Better graphics are almost always associated with new computers or consoles - that is natural. All things considered, the graphics are irrelevant if the game is fun. People push for realism, camera rotation, better controls, etc. That makes sense, however let me say that I believe the graphics and presentation of Alone in the Dark are not primitive. They are a style.
Matt made a *great* point in his latest written response. It is something I believe in, myself - You can horrify someone by not showing them things. Make them aware of something and then let their mind do the rest. Alone in the Dark (and earlier Resident Evil games) did this quite well - the fixed camera view sets each little stage. Events take place on that stage. There are certainly scripted events in today's 3D games, but I would argue that the players ability to naturally bob and weave the camera along with their typical ability to just turn and run actually takes away from the desired effect. If you can look away from something that is supposed to scare you in a game, then the suspense is lost. If you see something on the screen that you have to move past and have no choice but to be forced to view what is shown on screen (fixed camera), then you feel a little more scared. Add to that "tank controls," and you now have a second factor that adds to the effect. If the gameplay becomes frustrating to the point of anger, then the effect is lost. If it creates just enough of a feeling of helplessness to add to your anxiety, then mission accomplished.
On the movie side of things (not to continue spinning a new thread), I would say that movies that are often based on real events or possible events are the ones that can really get you. Someone might watch The Exorcist nowadays and find some of the actions and effects cheesy. However if you are of a religion that believes that people can be possessed by demons, you may have some trouble sleeping over the next few nights!
I would say that any movie that can leave some lasting effects of fear on you simply due to your mind constantly turning things over is a good horror film. Otherwise, it was probably just one of those "shock" films.
I'll comment a bit on horror in a moment, but let me talk about the game first.
I remember seeing Alone in the Dark at a local computer shop back when the game was first released. I want to say that I saw it on CD-ROM, but it could be that CD-ROM had just become available at the time. Either way, I was impressed. I was mostly buying Sierra games at the time, so Alone in the Dark didn't really get much financial consideration. I would simply watch the gameplay while I was at the store. It was (still is) a Mom & Pop computer store, and that made the experience a lot more fun.
Alone in the Dark is one of those games that has atmosphere. Can I be bold and say that people shouldn't feel the need to make an excuse for the graphics? Better graphics are almost always associated with new computers or consoles - that is natural. All things considered, the graphics are irrelevant if the game is fun. People push for realism, camera rotation, better controls, etc. That makes sense, however let me say that I believe the graphics and presentation of Alone in the Dark are not primitive. They are a style.
Matt made a *great* point in his latest written response. It is something I believe in, myself - You can horrify someone by not showing them things. Make them aware of something and then let their mind do the rest. Alone in the Dark (and earlier Resident Evil games) did this quite well - the fixed camera view sets each little stage. Events take place on that stage. There are certainly scripted events in today's 3D games, but I would argue that the players ability to naturally bob and weave the camera along with their typical ability to just turn and run actually takes away from the desired effect. If you can look away from something that is supposed to scare you in a game, then the suspense is lost. If you see something on the screen that you have to move past and have no choice but to be forced to view what is shown on screen (fixed camera), then you feel a little more scared. Add to that "tank controls," and you now have a second factor that adds to the effect. If the gameplay becomes frustrating to the point of anger, then the effect is lost. If it creates just enough of a feeling of helplessness to add to your anxiety, then mission accomplished.
On the movie side of things (not to continue spinning a new thread), I would say that movies that are often based on real events or possible events are the ones that can really get you. Someone might watch The Exorcist nowadays and find some of the actions and effects cheesy. However if you are of a religion that believes that people can be possessed by demons, you may have some trouble sleeping over the next few nights!
I would say that any movie that can leave some lasting effects of fear on you simply due to your mind constantly turning things over is a good horror film. Otherwise, it was probably just one of those "shock" films.
Chris Kennedy, Editor
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Email: chris@armchairarcade.com