Alone in the Dark

Alone in the Dark (2024) developed by a Swedish studio Pieces Interactive can't even be called a virtual game. De facto, this is an advertising product that at the end of the action tells you that you will learn all the secrets of Alone in the Dark in the next game. And what you've already gone through is a visual prologue. The scariest thing about AiD was not the dead and monsters, but soulless commerce.

AiD was frankly disappointing. New Orleans is not like itself. An unremarkable location can be attributed to any city in the South of the United States in the first half of the 20th century. The psychiatric hospital does not shine with plausibility and aesthetics, only the bathroom and bar elegantly made by the game designer occasionally remind that the action takes place in the 1920s. Because of the monotony of the environment, the Spirit of that time is not felt. The mission on the vintage steamer was the weakest and most shameful moment of the game. Players expected something remotely resembling BioShock Infinite from the horror world, but got a meaningless run from point «A» to point «B» with a dull shooting range consisting of stupid monsters controlled by artificial intelligence. I was pleased with the moment of transition from the American house to Egypt. The entrance in front of the tomb evoked flashbacks from the movie Mummy (1999) and the animated series Mummies Alive (1997), which amused nostalgia. But the tomb of the Pharaoh itself turned out to be another disappointment, made more primitive than the arenas from the game Unreal Tournament, which the brain memorized by heart.

The plot is interesting for the first 50% of the time, then it is flooded with garbage from other timelines, as a result of which the story turns into a farce, and the players get a scenario mess. The gameplay is dull and monotonous. Riddles are primitive and boring. Cheap casual games from the «Searching» genre, even despite the scarcity of two-dimensional graphics, can surprise and impress the player more than their expensive counterpart - Alone in the Dark.

93% of the characters are not charismatic, expressionless and quickly forgotten. Emily Hardwood which was copied from actress Jodie Comer fit well into the atmosphere of the 1920s, her image corresponds to that time. Emily Hartwood is a gumption, inquisitive, moderately brave (not a feminist caricature of a «Strong and Independent» woman), tactful, unopened Coquette a slight touch of pleasant (not too vulgar, but not feigned) sexuality. The character of Ruth Tallant is the opposite of Emily Hartwood, depicted grotesquely cliched with hypertrophied infantilism - a fake image of a «Starlet from the 1920s» created by an ignorant screenwriter. Ruth cannot be called a «Woman-Riddle» («Mystery Woman»), she does not have natural charm, but she has a naturalness, a weak realism, a trail of mystery stretches behind her. Ruth is an unfinished but interesting character.

Computer graphics have proven themselves well in the drawing of faces, facial expressions, clothes and in scenes related to the ignition of fire. Very realistic. Buildings, cars, interior, nature, are made on 3 out of 5 points and do not strike the mind with aesthetic beauty or subtlety of the image. AiD has in settings wide category of debugging the game of light and shadow, but the end result is not impressive. After playing with the sliders, the player gets a shadow depth weaker than in Deadfall Adventures from back in 2013. It would seem that a game with a difference of 11 years, with more technologically imperfect graphics, should be inferior to Alone in the Dark in everything... but the scene with the awakening of the mummy in a dark corner of the ruins of the temple looks more beautiful and realistic than that of his colleague from 2024.

Summing up, I was already going to give Alone in the Dark 3.5 points, but an unnecessarily naturalistic scene with a child forced me to deduct 1 point. I am not a prude and I perfectly understand the fashion for immoral realism imposed by HBO. But everything has its limits. In the game Outlast 2, the topic of victims of pedophilia was touched upon tangentially. But the developers were smart enough to show the evil of the lawlessness indirectly, without a naturalistic scene. In AiD, for the sake of HYPE, a cruel scene was shown, softening it only with a third-person view. The laurels of the scandalous bear from Baldur's Gate 3 are haunting the Swedes.

The result is 2.5 points out of 5. I do not recommend Alone in the Dark (2024). Will I wait for the release of the second part? It depends on which one. If it is made as mainstream by the Swedes as the first one, then NO. If the developers take the plot and atmosphere seriously, without chasing a large infantile audience, then commercial and artistic success awaits the sequel, and the gaming industry will be able to get another cult masterpiece into the hall of fame.

Given how mishandled and mismanaged the Alone in the Dark series has been in it's 30+ years of existence (looking at you especially, 2008 game & 2015 Illumination), it's a miracle a much better game still got made. This 2024 remake / reboot / re-imagining pays homage and is very faithful & respectful to the 1992 classic original's spirit and flavor with modern gameplay & graphics. I've finished the game 7 times (4 as Edward, 3 as Emily), and the game's story, characters, atmosphere & 1920s rural Gothic noir setting are very alluring and engaging. Not overly familiar with either David Harbour or Jodie Comer, but they played their respective protagonist roles brilliantly.

Combat is no doubt inferior when compared to recent Resident Evil games, but still serviceable and enjoyable. Graphics and animation is often ridiculed as "PS3-era" quality, which I don't see as a negative given this is a "AA" game with far less budget compared to recent Resident Evil games or Alan Wake 2, and many games for the PS2 and PS3 eras still look great even now. Another criticism I find odd is the game being "too short", when majority of action or survival horror games tend to clock between 6-12 hours of story & gameplay. I spent 8 hours as Edward and just under 7 hours as Emily in most of my playthroughs. So it was time well spent for me. No inventory managing as well any sort of health or weapon upgrades is no doubt glaring shortcomings. But given it's limited AA budget, I guess more emphasis in AITD 2024 was placed in story telling, characters, atmosphere, setting locations, and visuals.

As for the step in the right direction, you have to look no further than the last 2 games prior to 2024 Alone in the Dark... 2008 game and Illumination. 2008 game had potential, but is a jumbled mess with too many styles and ideas mixed in like a certain Resident Evil 6 but much worse. As for Illumination, I've no clue why they greenlited such a game in the first place. It's just so bad, it seemed to effectively bury the series for good. So it's simply a pleasant surprise to see THQ Nordic revive this long forgotten franchise, especially when it's the pioneer of survival horror games. The same can be said for Outcast's revival (with "A New Beginning"), which is the pioneer for open world games. The latest Alone in the Dark does a lot of things right despite the glaring flaws, that it's provided a solid modern foundation in reviving the series going forward. I feel optimistic it will grow an audience in due time, since many gamers are always on the look out for an alternative to Resident Evil, and Alone in the Dark 2024 will deliver on that craving. It's just wonderful to see Alone in the Dark back with a great game that will serve as an ideal entry point for newcomers to the series.

Solid story, good acting for the most part and a stellar setting! Absolutely loved exploring all the locations and the great detail put into those locations. Combat was a bit janky for me. Struggled especially against one small enemy that would consistently glitch under the floor on PC. Frustrated me greatly and is my biggest knock on this fun game.

I completed the Edward Carnby run in about 11 hours which is probably a bit longer than average. I encountered a few other glitches (like getting stuck on objects and walking on air instead of descending a stair case). Overall, I had a mostly good time and recommend this game to anyone who is a fan of old-school horror games as it has some good references to the original in here.

I would still enjoy this game without a star cast. It was buggy upon release as if they hadn't tested the game before. It has been updated but I still had an environmental bug that I had to reload a save from. If you're looking for a scary horror game this isn't that. It's more of a gothic horror suspense thriller! I enjoyed the puzzles, and only had to look up walkthroughs once or twice cause I couldn't figure it out. The combat is light, which I enjoy it not being a total shooter game. I like that they added New Game +. I think they nailed what they were going for, but the game deserved to be polished up a bit more. Characters feel clunky at times and the graphics seem lazy in some parts. I really enjoyed the Louisiana Southern Gothic feel of the 1920s-30s. Everyone says it's 1920s and I would agree but I found an item stating The Great Depression, which the market crashed in 1929. At the end of the day I think people are dwelling on that too much. Also yes the story switches between "reality" and "places" which I didn't find confusing at all. Its part of the story and is supposed to be whimsically off putting. Perhaps people don't enjoy an unreliable narrative which we get when playing as Emily. I will agree at times the building had people to talk to and then randomly at times felt vacant, whether or not that's intentional I'm unsure.

I did find the switch to "Egyptian vibes" confusing as it had voodoo elements at first, but it's a small detail to the story, so in the end it makes sense.

I will be playing this game again, and looking forward to additional titles being released.

This game oddly reminds me of (or plays similarly to) Resident Evil Village and The Last of Us, but feels below the bar those games set. I also felt like this game was a marketing fail, I'm just now hearing about it a year later.

In conclusion if the game had polished its graphics, and tested better before release I'm sure it would have been 10/10.

Once upon a time there was a video game that invented a terrifying genre but got worse as the series went on. One day THQ resurrected themselves in Norway and decided to resurrect a video dead gaming franchise called Alone in the Dark.

They tried remaking Alone in the Dark but the only thing on their mind was copying Resident Evil 4 and the Last of Us Wooooh! Which made a fun romp but was nothing like Alone in the Dark original.

The art style is good but the character designs are uncanny! WoooohH! Except Miss Hartwood is so hot. (The lust of 100 demons humiliate you for a cartoon chick.)

This game has nothing to do with the original besides there is a frog in the intro. There are more outside zones like Bourbon Street for whatever.

The monsters are the least terrifying thing in this game. None of them have supernatural behaviors and the combat doesn't elicit that because Melee in the original was so important. So crucial. The enemies are just zombies but with Eldritch horror monster characters. Nothing weird or terrifying.

You know, It's ok to deviate from the original but Alone in the Dark 2024 isn't it. It doesn't know what it wants to be. I wanted a 1:1 remake made in Unity but we can't all get what we want so we have Alone in the Dark 2024.

If you want a generic horror game. Go buy it on sale. But if you wanna remake of Alone in the Dark from 1992? Summon Cthulhu cause you ain't gonna get it here.