Who played The Thing back in the day

Avatar image for kizza_soze
Kizza_Soze

448

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#1 Kizza_Soze
Member since 2021 • 448 Posts

Would love another game made from this IP. The game was dope & does not get the credit it deserves.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
RSM-HQ

11655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 94

User Lists: 1

#2  Edited By RSM-HQ
Member since 2009 • 11655 Posts

The 128-bit game? yeah I did on PlayStation 2, way after release too. Very clunky experience but I enjoyed the concept for the game and very difficult all considering. It was an interesting take on horror in a generation that was Survival Horrors pinnacle.

Licence games are typically downplayed because 99.9% of them are bad/ mediocre video games, and I would even say The Thing would fall in that category despite its cool ideas.

Some fans of these franchises look over the flaws because they are fans of what it is replicating, and allow themselves to play ignorant. Slap some nostalgia in a Gears horde-mode and watch places like Game Spot call it one of this years best games.

Unless it's an established franchise too that is hugely relevant, not many will have ever tried The Thing video game. While The Thing is considered a horror classic (movie's') it is barely a mass franchise like Friday the 13th, or Alien.

Avatar image for byshop
Byshop

20504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#3 Byshop  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 20504 Posts

I read this topic as like "who was the actor who played The Thing in the movie".

The PS2 game was pretty meh, but it was also from an era of a lot of "meh" PS2 survival horror. Like @RSM-HQ said, some of the ideas were neat but in practice a lot of it didn't work very well. Yes, it was cool that you'd get random followers and that any one of them could turn out to be a Thing and you had testing kits you could use on them. But in practice this meant that nearly all of the characters you'd encounter were basically nameless NPCs who would all be dead or morphed by the end of an area. The game even cheated at its own rules. I remember one part where I knew I was going into a boss battle so I tested my one follower and he came back clean. Then I took two steps and he hulked out and tried to kill me, because the next area was a boss battle and he couldn't come with me so the game just turned him into an alien to deal with that issue. The whole point of the movie was the paranoia of the situation everyone was in but the game really failed to capture that.

Avatar image for DEVILinIRON
DEVILinIRON

8732

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#4 DEVILinIRON
Member since 2006 • 8732 Posts

I used to have The Thing for PC many years ago. I think my PC sucked so I couldn't play it. :(

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#5 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts

I played the better version of it on Xbox. It wasn't bad. I'd consider playing the PC version some time if I didn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get it to run. I see there are mods to get a true widescreen 1080P out of it, so maybe.

Avatar image for speeny
Speeny

3357

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 19

#6  Edited By Speeny
Member since 2018 • 3357 Posts

I haven't played it myself but I watched the guys over at Cinemassacre do a playthrough of it of sorts on the PS2.

Definitely looked interesting. Advanced for it's time even, graphically & gameplay wise, that's probably very much debatable though.

Avatar image for kizza_soze
Kizza_Soze

448

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#7 Kizza_Soze
Member since 2021 • 448 Posts

@RSM-HQ said:

The 128-bit game? yeah I did on PlayStation 2, way after release too. Very clunky experience but I enjoyed the concept for the game and very difficult all considering. It was an interesting take on horror in a generation that was Survival Horrors pinnacle.

Licence games are typically downplayed because 99.9% of them are bad/ mediocre video games, and I would even say The Thing would fall in that category despite its cool ideas.

Some fans of these franchises look over the flaws because they are fans of what it is replicating, and allow themselves to play ignorant. Slap some nostalgia in a Gears horde-mode and watch places like Game Spot call it one of this years best games.

Unless it's an established franchise too that is hugely relevant, not many will have ever tried The Thing video game. While The Thing is considered a horror classic (movie's') it is barely a mass franchise like Friday the 13th, or Alien.

I disagree with it being average.. But, by todays standards, yes, the game is terrible, like 98% of PS1,N64, Saturn, PS2, Xbox & Cube games... It was a different era, & most games certainly could not be held up to todays standards, as games have progressed exponentially strictly just from a gameplay standard.

Even Half Life & Goldeneye are hot steaming piles of turd sandwich when held up to modern fps's.

When you said, "way after release", does that mean 1 gen after, 2 gens, 3 gens ???? Because, for me, in any era, there are almost zero games you can look at, at that moment in time & get the same feeling from playing it 5-6yrs after the fact.

But, I loved the game, it was great for a survival horror game & excellent for a movie game based on a more niche IP....was it perfect, nope...but good enough to get some props & hope for a new game that uses some of the same ideas.

Same goes with Freedom Fighters from the same era, by lO interactive.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
RSM-HQ

11655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 94

User Lists: 1

#8  Edited By RSM-HQ
Member since 2009 • 11655 Posts
@kizza_soze said:

I disagree with it being average.. But, by todays standards, yes, the game is terrible, like 98% of PS1,N64, Saturn, PS2, Xbox & Cube games... It was a different era, & most games certainly could not be held up to todays standards, as games have progressed exponentially strictly just from a gameplay standard.

Resident Evil 4 got re-released recently in some VR form, and still very positive received. I've read nothing but great things. Odin Sphere was not so long ago, also well received even by todays standards, many places gave it 9/10's or higher (both these games released in the same generation as The Thing video game)

Quake too, extremely well received! List goes on, just look at the CastleVania collections and the positive reception they gather. . I cannot think of many who believe Aria of Sorrows or SOTN are 'meh'.

As such. Have to disagree to your disagree, if a game is great? it is great! The excuse of "aged poorly"/"product of its time" are really games that never deserved the praise. Praised from a technological standpoint and not a gameplay one, are shallow experiences that do not age well.

Games like Crysis/ Uncharted/ Shenmue age like milk because they focused on physics and graphics, breaking some kind of previous superficial/ cosmetic limitation. Some games like the ones mentioned focus on a 'hook', that no game did at the time. Goldeneye is a good example mentioned, but as time shows it is D00M 64 that aged with grace. D64 played it safe and is just more D00M; but you know what. . D00M is fun. Goldeneye is a neat 'idea' that used its hardware well, fun? only for the multiplayer and if everyone is drunk; because the framerate is terrible.

Pushing hardware limitations doesn't pay off for a game if that is what the game relies on to be relevant; being mechanically fun and engaging is always what makes the best games in town.

Just look at Tetris, still the masterpiece it ever was, even post the stone-age.

Avatar image for kizza_soze
Kizza_Soze

448

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#9 Kizza_Soze
Member since 2021 • 448 Posts

@RSM-HQ said:
@kizza_soze said:

I disagree with it being average.. But, by todays standards, yes, the game is terrible, like 98% of PS1,N64, Saturn, PS2, Xbox & Cube games... It was a different era, & most games certainly could not be held up to todays standards, as games have progressed exponentially strictly just from a gameplay standard.

Resident Evil 4 got re-released recently in some VR form, and still very positive received. I've read nothing but great things. Odin Sphere was not so long ago, also well received even by todays standards, many places gave it 9/10's or higher (both these games released in the same generation as The Thing video game)

Quake too, extremely well received! List goes on, just look at the CastleVania collections and the positive reception they gather. . I cannot think of many who believe Aria of Sorrows or SOTN are 'meh'.

As such. Have to disagree to your disagree, if a game is great? it is great! The excuse of "aged poorly"/"product of its time" are really games that never deserved the praise. Praised from a technological standpoint and not a gameplay one, are shallow experiences that do not age well.

Games like Crysis/ Uncharted/ Shenmue age like milk because they focused on physics and graphics, breaking some kind of previous superficial/ cosmetic limitation. Some games like the ones mentioned focus on a 'hook', that no game did at the time. Goldeneye is a good example mentioned, but as time shows it is D00M 64 that aged with grace. D64 played it safe and is just more D00M; but you know what. . D00M is fun. Goldeneye is a neat 'idea' that used its hardware well, fun? only for the multiplayer and if everyone is drunk; because the framerate is terrible.

Pushing hardware limitations doesn't pay off for a game if that is what the game relies on to be relevant; being mechanically fun and engaging is always what makes the best games in town.

Just look at Tetris, still the masterpiece it ever was, even post the stone-age.

All those game you mentioned still getting praise & rereleases are not in their original form though are they? They all have had graphics upgrades, overhauls, etc, etc as well as frame rate bumps, & controls tightened (just like the GTA trilogy as it would be deemed mediocre by todays standards).

So your analogy is disingenuous at best. Yes, a VERY RARE SELECT few games can stand the test of time for people looking through rose tinted bi-focals. Galaga is a biggie for me....WHY???? Because it is so stupidly simple in it's concept & gameplay for one, as well as NOSTALGIA....and this is the ONLY one that counts really...

If I tried to get my 15yr old son off Fortnite to play some Galaga with me, he would be embarrassed by it's complete sh!tness. Same with Quake & ALL that you mentioned.... Play any of those games in their original form & a young person will think you're smokin' meth for playing this antiquated lumps of turd.

And mentioning a game like Tetris..well, it was that days candy crush, etc. Made for mass consumerism. No gender, age,etc, preference. Kind of like the SNAP or UNO of videogames. And even it has received so many updated new versions that it is certainly not the same game being sold as 30+ years ago.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
RSM-HQ

11655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 94

User Lists: 1

#10  Edited By RSM-HQ
Member since 2009 • 11655 Posts
@kizza_soze said:

All those game you mentioned still getting praise & rereleases are not in their original form though are they? They all have had graphics upgrades, overhauls, etc, etc as well as frame rate bumps, & controls tightened

For overhauls and such you are thinking of remakes I'm mentioning ports for the most part. I'm not mentioning Alex Kidd DX, not even Demon's Souls Remake or Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary.

Quake may fall into that as I have not experienced that port/remaster or looked too much into it, from my understanding they cleaned some textures and added new expansions. The Quake main game mechanically is the original game and faithfully brought to all modern platforms; and as noted is very well recieved.

For the mentioned ones I've played from the older generations and to modern ports they handle and feel the same, if anything is changed it is a HD slider and improved framerate, which does improve the experience but at its core is the same game.

Games like The Thing would not benefit too much from either one because it has problems in many basic areas of gameplay from level design to core mechanics to input commands. If The Thing video game got a retry on modern platforms it would get 3.5/10's or lower because the game is pretty bad even if it does get new textures and improved 60-120FPS. The Thing would require a full-blown remake to be of acceptable quality because it was never that good to begin with.

Despite some minor refinements for crafting due to more buttons to use for modern platforms Odin Sphere only really fixed the framerate, and put stuff into a HD filter; same experience. It is the game we had on PS2.

Resident Evil 4 is using the Gamecube assets and pacing/ mechanics as the original version of the game. Just re-tooled for VR, I have Resi4 on PS4 and can confirm as someone who played it on PS2 and Gamecube the game is the same experience and holds up extremely well. I've even jumped around ports and in some areas the Gamecube/ Wii version is still the best in my view (probably because it was built for the system and all future ports used PS2 code which was inferior in many areas). Can even find some who are claiming the VR version is worse than Resi4HD (the port on other modern systems) because of the lack of Mercenaries.

CastleVania Collections are very barebones and no real 'upgrade', they are the games originally released in its entirety.

We've also had bad ports before that are in fact far worse than the original release, Silent Hill HD collection comes to mind. Terrible.

just like the GTA trilogy as it would be deemed mediocre by todays standards

Well many would argue that the upcoming collection is more a remake than a remaster because they have overhauled so much and have redone the shooting mechanics and driving entirely. Even then curious how that turns out.

While I think Grand Theft Auto pushed open world design in the right direction much like Morrowind and Daggerfall I would not call them great games from a gameplay standpoint even on release. Fans enjoyed them more for the expansive world and hectic nature of the game than what they achieved from a run and gunning or driving perspective. As noted in my previous post, GTA3 was not loved because it was a great game, it was loved because no game was doing what it was doing with the limited hardware. And as noted that kind of experience does not age well.

If I tried to get my 15yr old son off Fortnite to play some Galaga with me, he would be embarrassed by it's complete sh!tness. Same with Quake & ALL that you mentioned.... Play any of those games in their original form & a young person will think you're smokin' meth for playing this antiquated lumps of turd.

Personally wasn't born in the same generation as many the games I praise and yet I think Tetris is a masterpiece despite being almost two decades late to the party. Quake? I think is fun, not so much a masterpiece. I believe that proves your theory wrong to some extent.

As for your kid part, that's not a factor to the games quality, that is normal of a child. I have a step-sibling who only wants to play Genshin, Among Us or Fortnite right now. No other game.

Children tend to enjoy what other children play, call them fads, trends, whatever. . for me it was all about dance pads as a younger kid and I typically disliked most video games till I got hooked onto Tekken Tag Tournament. We had retro systems in my home growing up, apparently someone got baby me to play Kirby 3, but I wouldn't appreciate them till I was much older. As such let kids be kids I guess, do not think pushing interests was ever a good idea for parents to do anyway. Didn't studies show that makes children bitter or something? . .

Going back a step as noted; what a kid finds appealing doesn't factor quality, unless you have come to the notion that Among Us and Fortnite are mechanically the greatest games ever made? that is on you dood (they are certainly not 'even if I've found both pretty fun')

I mean, let us look at this Pokémon is the biggest media franchise on the entire planet! do you think Sword and Shield is among the greatest games ever made? I certainly don't, I even played and reviewed it, game is trash! And that is coming from someone who praised Sun and Moon.

Think it is fine if you have come to the mentality that 'old=bad' it's your perception on the matter. I'll however never judged a game if it is new or old, I judge it by the quality itself. And I enjoy both new releases and retro games, I also dislike many retro and newer games in turn.

Avatar image for byshop
Byshop

20504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#11 Byshop  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 20504 Posts

@RSM-HQ said:
@kizza_soze said:

I disagree with it being average.. But, by todays standards, yes, the game is terrible, like 98% of PS1,N64, Saturn, PS2, Xbox & Cube games... It was a different era, & most games certainly could not be held up to todays standards, as games have progressed exponentially strictly just from a gameplay standard.

Resident Evil 4 got re-released recently in some VR form, and still very positive received. I've read nothing but great things. Odin Sphere was not so long ago, also well received even by todays standards, many places gave it 9/10's or higher (both these games released in the same generation as The Thing video game)

Quake too, extremely well received! List goes on, just look at the CastleVania collections and the positive reception they gather. . I cannot think of many who believe Aria of Sorrows or SOTN are 'meh'.

As such. Have to disagree to your disagree, if a game is great? it is great! The excuse of "aged poorly"/"product of its time" are really games that never deserved the praise. Praised from a technological standpoint and not a gameplay one, are shallow experiences that do not age well.

Games like Crysis/ Uncharted/ Shenmue age like milk because they focused on physics and graphics, breaking some kind of previous superficial/ cosmetic limitation. Some games like the ones mentioned focus on a 'hook', that no game did at the time. Goldeneye is a good example mentioned, but as time shows it is D00M 64 that aged with grace. D64 played it safe and is just more D00M; but you know what. . D00M is fun. Goldeneye is a neat 'idea' that used its hardware well, fun? only for the multiplayer and if everyone is drunk; because the framerate is terrible.

Pushing hardware limitations doesn't pay off for a game if that is what the game relies on to be relevant; being mechanically fun and engaging is always what makes the best games in town.

Just look at Tetris, still the masterpiece it ever was, even post the stone-age.

RE4 was a solid game overall, and for the time it was pretty amazing from a technical and gameplay standpoint. I've beaten that game more times and across more platforms than maybe any other game, and I just beat it yet again on the Quest 2 after about 10 hours.

I agree with your point that at least some games that "age badly" might do so because their shining points were technical innovations or graphics which quickly become outdated over the generations. It's like early CGI in movies, where Lawnmower Man impressed people at the time but looks like utter garbage by any modern standard. Similarly earlier movies that relied on practical effects like 2001 still hold up, kinda like how 2D games such as Odin Sphere and other Vanillaware games that focused on art style still look great by modern standards. Even early 3D games can still look good today, provided the reason they looked good in the first place was because of artistic style rather than trying for photorealism.

But I disagree that this might be the only reason that a game might age badly. Another reason is gameplay innovations evolve over time, and things that were considered the norm or even pretty good can be pretty hard to go back to. Look at the RE2-make and RE3-makes. Both of those games are more like re-imaginings of the original PS2 games since they borrow pretty liberally from the innovations of RE4 (third person over the shoulder perspective, direct aiming, etc). It would be hard to go back to a set of fixed camera perspectives like the original games had, but that's not the fault of the original games.

But The Thing was just kind of meh. It's biggest advertised feature turned out to be a lame gimmick. It got decent reviews at the time, but I was very unimpressed when I actually played it. It's biggest praise is that it was a movie tie-in game that wasn't completely awful in an era where the vast majority of movie tie-in games where absolute garbage.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
RSM-HQ

11655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 94

User Lists: 1

#12  Edited By RSM-HQ
Member since 2009 • 11655 Posts
@Byshop said:

I disagree that this might be the only reason that a game might age badly. Another reason is gameplay innovations evolve over time, and things that were considered the norm or even pretty good can be pretty hard to go back to. Look at the RE2-make and RE3-makes. Both of those games are more like re-imaginings of the original

It is why I used ports as examples and not full blown remakes, I personally believe the original Resident Evil games hold up remarkably well for what they are at anycase, visually they are underwhelming and not everyone will tolerate fixed camera angles but what they aim to achieve works surprisingly well and are fun games. If someone can overlook its lack of over the shoulder I think they can enjoy at least the Gamecube Remake which many regard as one of the series best games. It was released in HD and was received quite positively. One could even look at that HD ports success and praise for why Resident Evil returned to its horror roots.

It would be hard to go back to a set of fixed camera perspectives like the original games had, but that's not the fault of the original games.

Not sure I agree, Resi4-like was a natural evolution, though the demand is there for fixed camera too. Sequels getting better doesn't make something less good or bad. Preference and diminishing tedium for refinement can come to newer entries but they can lose something too in turn. I've seen many argue over the years Resi4 is not scary, too much action, too much ammo, and no alternative endings/ branching paths strayed too far from the formula (I personally love both but fans can be very divisive/ cynical) The Evil Within also answers a lot of those criticisms for Resi4 while also playing much like Resi4 and still people complain. No win situation from some in the fanbase it would seem. .

Back onto sequels surpassing the past. . I mean Street Fighter V doesn't make past Street Fighters irrelevant does it? Alpha 3 and Third Strike are vocally still considered the best games in that franchise. In fact, too many SFV is a huge disappointment. And I will go out on a limb and throw out my hatred to Tekken 7.

I've seen a few times it been asked from the community for Capcom to release a classic collection of Resident Evil and the Outbreak games released to modern platforms. They are visually aged games for sure, but like Quake I'm not sure that'll matter. As noted 'a great game, is a great game.' For as much as I did enjoy Remake 3 it was equally disappointing in comparison to the original.

Those classic Resi games have many clever elements, puzzles, alternative endings, and overall flow to them that can only really be found in the fixed camera classics. Demento and Silent Hill series as well I personally regard quite well for what they do. Even the two Outbreak games, they're really good. Sure controls are stiff but at least all these games are designed to compensate for your lack of mobility and agile reflexes.

Also worth noting an indie Survival Horror was released recently Tormented Souls with an overwhelming positive reception, and it uses fixed camera angles. Namely for capturing the spirit of games like Silent Hill and Resident Evil.

I'd recommend going back to one of those fixed camera games, you may be surprised how well they hold-up.

As such my point remains the same in regards to The Thing, it was a cool idea. An idea, its execution however was pretty bad, always was and has been, It was not well designed to be played as a video game and to be fun to play. And looking back at all the games I threw under a bus I personally believe they suffered for similar sins. Classic Resident Evil regardless of the mobility and camera not everyone will love is designed with care and intent, and are enjoyable for what they are aiming to achieve. As such are well designed video games, are they on the level of Tetris? no, but few games can compare to a fundamentally flawless creation.

Avatar image for byshop
Byshop

20504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#13 Byshop  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 20504 Posts

@RSM-HQ said:

It is why I used ports as examples and not full blown remakes, I personally believe the original Resident Evil games hold up remarkably well for what they are at anycase, visually they are underwhelming and not everyone will tolerate fixed camera angles but what they aim to achieve works surprisingly well and are fun games. If someone can overlook its lack of over the shoulder I think they can enjoy at least the Gamecube Remake which many regard as one of the series best games. It was released in HD and was received quite positively. One could even look at that HD ports success and praise for why Resident Evil returned to its horror roots.

Gamecube RE1-make was great, but even that tried to uplift the series a bit from the original game with more than just graphical updates (the first time a "Red Head" came after us was particularly memorable).

@RSM-HQ said:

Not sure I agree, Resi4-like was a natural evolution, though the demand is there for fixed camera too. Sequels getting better doesn't make something less good or bad. Preference and diminishing tedium for refinement can come to newer entries but they can lose something too in turn. I've seen many argue over the years Resi4 is not scary, too much action, too much ammo, and no alternative endings/ branching paths strayed too far from the formula (I personally love both but fans can be very divisive/ cynical) The Evil Within also answers a lot of those criticisms for Resi4 while also playing much like Resi4 and still people complain. No win situation from some in the fanbase it would seem. .

Back onto sequels surpassing the past. . I mean Street Fighter V doesn't make past Street Fighters irrelevant does it? Alpha 3 and Third Strike are vocally still considered the best games in that franchise. In fact, too many SFV is a huge disappointment. And I will go out on a limb and throw out my hatred to Tekken 7.

I've seen a few times it been asked from the community for Capcom to release a classic collection of Resident Evil and the Outbreak games released to modern platforms. They are visually aged games for sure, but like Quake I'm not sure that'll matter. As noted 'a great game, is a great game.' For as much as I did enjoy Remake 3 it was equally disappointing in comparison to the original.

Those classic Resi games have many clever elements, puzzles, alternative endings, and overall flow to them that can only really be found in the fixed camera classics. Demento and Silent Hill series as well I personally regard quite well for what they do. Even the two Outbreak games, they're really good. Sure controls are stiff but at least all these games are designed to compensate for your lack of mobility and agile reflexes.

Also worth noting an indie Survival Horror was released recently Tormented Souls with an overwhelming positive reception, and it uses fixed camera angles. Namely for capturing the spirit of games like Silent Hill and Resident Evil.

I'd recommend going back to one of those fixed camera games, you may be surprised how well they hold-up.

As such my point remains the same in regards to The Thing, it was a cool idea. An idea, its execution however was pretty bad, always was and has been, It was not well designed to be played as a video game and to be fun to play. And looking back at all the games I threw under a bus I personally believe they suffered for similar sins. Classic Resident Evil regardless of the mobility and camera not everyone will love is designed with care and intent, and are enjoyable for what they are aiming to achieve. As such are well designed video games, are they on the level of Tetris? no, but few games can compare to a fundamentally flawless creation.

With RE4 there's a lot to say there about how it is or isn't a proper RE game and that's been the subject of threads for years. I'm not even anti-fixed cameras but if you were to suggest someone play games like original RE1 or RE2 (which I love) they'd likely get frustrated with gameplay anachronisms like getting attacked by zombie dogs that just at you from offscreen even though they're directly in front of your character. Compare that to games like classic Metroid Fusion or classic Castlevania games that hold up across the board.

I'll check out Tormented Souls as I hadn't heard about that one. I'd also recommend Simulacrum as an indie game. It tries heavily to mimic the style of Silent Hill 1 and 2 in particular and uses fixed camera angles in 3D environments, but it's also a puzzle/horror game with pretty much no combat that would be hampered by that approach.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
RSM-HQ

11655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 94

User Lists: 1

#14  Edited By RSM-HQ
Member since 2009 • 11655 Posts
@Byshop said:

Gamecube RE1-make was great, but even that tried to uplift the series a bit from the original game with more than just graphical updates (the first time a "Red Head" came after us was particularly memorable).

It's why if I recommended just one classic fixed camera entry it would be Remake 1, I find that it is as finely tuned as it got, taking all the best aspects from the classic games and taking it even further. Forest mode as well is extremely intense.

Helps that the remake is easy on the eyes but is more than that, Zero is arguably a better looking game and is considered a bad entry, could even call it the Resident Evil 6 of fixed camera entries.

With RE4 there's a lot to say there about how it is or isn't a proper RE game and that's been the subject of threads for years. I'm not even anti-fixed cameras but if you were to suggest someone play games like original RE1 or RE2 (which I love) they'd likely get frustrated with gameplay anachronisms like getting attacked by zombie dogs that just at you from offscreen even though they're directly in front of your character.

For the first hour or so, sure. However I personally believe that those games never shined on a first impression anyway, not from a gameplay aspect. Even back when released. Sure the scares probably got many interested but gameplay was just as jarring then, as it is now.

Difference is the games are designed with intent. "a closed mind is a tortured mind", if someone gives those classic games the time of day, they'll see the game(s) are built around its limitations and control options. In fact Resident Evil and yes Silent Hill are designed and reward cautious playstyles. Resident Evil at its best is more about item management and what you do when and where, than the perfectly lined up head shot of Resi4+. Should I take health? only got three shells left. . what if I run into hunters again? . . Oh no, the Nemesis broken through a window and is firing rockets in my direction! this is the appeal. As noted Remake goes one step further and makes you question of which bodies to burn? . . I love it so dam much.

I would even say Resident Evil 2 Remake captured a lot of the classic entries while also handling like Resi4 (much like The Evil Within as well) it is a great collab of new and old that in my view brought a side to the series I have not seen for sometime. Resident Evil Revelations 2 and VII did go a little back to the series roots, do not want to ignore those games. I just personally feel they slightly missed the mark unlike Resi2Remake.

As for the dogs I've seen a few people finding them frustrating to deal with in Resi 4 and 5 also because they're not use to the sudden fast enemies over the slow and meticulous ganados, it's all about adapting. For the classics I typically find a doorway spot in a hallway and let them come to me, pop them as they jump.

Not saying the older games are not without fault, or even for everyone, they can be frustrating. However I still think outside Zero in particular the fixed camera games are well designed and can be called great in many cases of the word. Remake 1 being the easiest bet for someone new jumping into the series.

I'd also recommend Simulacrum as an indie game.

I've played the first chapter I believe, in the past and had a lot of technical issues myself, got a refund because of it. Has it been cleaned up since? I typed it in to check and gave me a Magic the Gathering card, lol.

On a side note from classic to modern, I saw a lot of people get upset that the 128-bit Ninja Gaiden Black was not part of the NG collection, I personally like the first Sigma quite a lot but do think Black being part the collection would have been great. Sigma 2 as well is not even anywhere near as good as Ninja Gaiden 2 for the 360, a downgrade in most cases. Despite all the cool bosses and extra characters.

Avatar image for deactivated-63d1ad7651984
deactivated-63d1ad7651984

10057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

#15 deactivated-63d1ad7651984
Member since 2017 • 10057 Posts

I would love a remake of that game it was pretty good I beat it for the first time last year on PC it's one of the better games based on a movie.

Avatar image for byshop
Byshop

20504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#16 Byshop  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 20504 Posts

@RSM-HQ: "For the first hour or so, sure. However I personally believe that those games never shined on a first impression anyway, not from a gameplay aspect. Even back when released. Sure the scares probably got many interested but gameplay was just as jarring then, as it is now."

RE4 was pretty well received back when it was first released on Gamecube for a lot of reasons. It brought a lot of fun innovations that at the time were technically impressive around the gunplay and how enemies behaved and reacted to being shot. Again, I'd say it's an amazing game but not necessarily a great RE game and that's the debate about it that has been going on for over a decade.

"Difference is the games are designed with intent. "a closed mind is a tortured mind", if someone gives those classic games the time of day, they'll see the game(s) are built around its limitations and control options. In fact Resident Evil and yes Silent Hill are designed and reward cautious playstyles. Resident Evil at its best is more about item management and what you do when and where, than the perfectly lined up head shot of Resi4+. Should I take health? only got three shells left. . what if I run into hunters again? . . Oh no, the Nemesis broken through a window and is firing rockets in my direction! this is the appeal. As noted Remake goes one step further and makes you question of which bodies to burn? . . I love it so dam much."

There's a difference in what I'm talking about between anachronistic gameplay or design elements vs design choices that support the gameplay experience you're going for. A lot of the gameplay elements you're describing above are core elements of survival horror games, and those are mechanics that are still deliberately put it even modern games of the genre. For instance, RE4 dropped a lot of that in favor of a more action heavy approach. One could even debate that it's not a survival horror game at all but more like an action game with a horror setting.

There's a degree of subjectivity here as to what gameplay mechanics lie in which camp of course, but here's my take. Ammo/supply conservation, the expectation that you will have to spend a fair amount of time doing your best to avoid combat, weighing the risk/reward of exploring a certain area because you don't know if it will be worth it, etc. These are all examples of survival horror. I would not use these as examples of why an old game might be hard to play because these are highly effective design choices that are still used in games today. When I say anachronistic design, I'm talking about things that were either bad ideas or technical limitations that the industry has learned from or no longer needs to do. I'm talking about getting killed by a licker leaping across the room from off camera and killing you because the pre-rendered backdrop angle didn't show him in time. I'm talking about old text adventure games where the entire game was basically tedious trial-and-error where you could make a mistake at the beginning of the game and not find out until you're 90% through the game only to find out you screwed up and can't win now. I'm talking about JRPGs where battles took place as "random encounters" where your party was constantly pulled into a battle screen every time they took more than two steps on the world map. Sometimes these were tech limits, other times they were just the best ideas designers had at the time and the industry eventually evolved away from them. For someone who's played the evolution of some of these mechanics and doesn't have the benefit of nostalgia having grown up with what came before, it would be hard to recommend games like the original Alone in the Dark or Ecstatica even though at the time I loved these games.

On the other hand, there are some games of that era I'd wholeheartedly recommend. Silent Hill 2, 1, and even 3 are all pretty dated and not without technical limitations but they were great. SH1 is a little rough by modern standards in terms of gameplay, voice acting and dialog pacing, etc but 2 and 3 hold up pretty well even by modern standards.

"I've played the first chapter I believe, in the past and had a lot of technical issues myself, got a refund because of it. Has it been cleaned up since? I typed it in to check and gave me a Magic the Gathering card, lol."

You'll have to know how you pulled off getting a refund since it's a free fan game. Maybe you're thinking of a different title? This is the game I'm referring to:

Loading Video...

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
RSM-HQ

11655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 94

User Lists: 1

#17  Edited By RSM-HQ
Member since 2009 • 11655 Posts
@Byshop said:

There's a difference in what I'm talking about between anachronistic gameplay or design elements vs design choices that support the gameplay experience you're going for. A lot of the gameplay elements you're describing above are core elements of survival horror games, and those are mechanics that are still deliberately put it even modern games of the genre. For instance, RE4 dropped a lot of that in favor of a more action heavy approach. One could even debate that it's not a survival horror game at all but more like an action game with a horror setting.

I believe during its release Mikami described the game as "Survival Action", though I personally feel it still captured a good chunk of the Survival Horror feel throughout the experience, especially during the break of night sequence and Regenrators.

There's a degree of subjectivity here as to what gameplay mechanics lie in which camp of course, but here's my take. Ammo/supply conservation, the expectation that you will have to spend a fair amount of time doing your best to avoid combat, weighing the risk/reward of exploring a certain area because you don't know if it will be worth it, etc. These are all examples of survival horror.

I do not disagree that other Survival Horror games have not done this, Resident Evil was not even the first (most credit this to Alone in the Dark). For design and execution however I feel Resident Evil did this really well. I personally feel a lot of people are harsh on The Evil Within because resources are too limited and as such are much more difficult games over its parent series, Resident Evil; which nailed the refinement of all those elements as well as possible without punishing players too harshly.

I would not use these as examples of why an old game might be hard to play because these are highly effective design choices that are still used in games today. When I say anachronistic design, I'm talking about things that were either bad ideas or technical limitations that the industry has learned from or no longer needs to do. I'm talking about getting killed by a licker leaping across the room from off camera and killing you because the pre-rendered backdrop angle didn't show him in time.

Sound design is very important in Survival Horror in my view and Lickers make a huge scream before going for the big leap attack, while the camera is limiting in what the player can see the tells in audio design alone are helpful for whether or not the player should leave and come back in to reset the room or hug a wall and run around the mutants. Fixed cameras do have a lot to be desired but do feel the audio ques help alleviate the frustration.

Classic complaint in Resi and Silent Hill is an enemy hidden around the corner, and yes it is cheap, I noted Demon's Souls places enemies in a similar manner, classic 'got ya' trope. Difference is unlike Demon's Souls you can hear the enemies if the player is taking it nice and slow in both Resi and with the radio in SH. If anything I feel Survival Horror punishes recklessness.

I'm talking about old text adventure games where the entire game was basically tedious trial-and-error where you could make a mistake at the beginning of the game and not find out until you're 90% through the game only to find out you screwed up and can't win now. I'm talking about JRPGs where battles took place as "random encounters" where your party was constantly pulled into a battle screen every time they took more than two steps on the world map

Maybe because punishing experiences have become more and more rare that is the reason I enjoy them, kinda how I enjoyed the reboot of Ghost n' Goblins while the Game Spot on the easiest difficulty moaned it was too hard. Trail and error can be done horribly wrong I do agree, but I also feel proper trail and error is only for those who are not taking it slow and peeking around corners and using the other senses. I enjoy the Souls series and rarely got caught by the boulder traps and explosions because I saw it coming and prepared myself.

Sure not everyone has the patience for that kind of experience but I also do not feel those kind of games are designed for mass appeal anyhow.

having grown up with what came before, it would be hard to recommend games like the original Alone in the Dark or Ecstatica even though at the time I loved these games.

I will admit I've tried the original and even a few other Alone in the Dark games. Not personally a fan, I do not think they are designed very well. Happy it kicked off a genre I love so much, but I could not enjoy the games all that much.

On the other hand, there are some games of that era I'd wholeheartedly recommend. Silent Hill 2, 1, and even 3 are all pretty dated and not without technical limitations but they were great. SH1 is a little rough by modern standards in terms of gameplay, voice acting and dialog pacing, etc but 2 and 3 hold up pretty well even by modern standards.

Take it all as rumor but I've read around one of the games Blue Point is doing is a faithful remake of the first Silent Hill. I would be curious how that one works out. Personally a fan of all four of the original Silent Hill games but yes the series was always plagued with poor input commands, that was always my biggest gripe with the series. Camera as well would flip out at times.

You'll have to know how you pulled off getting a refund since it's a free fan game. Maybe you're thinking of a different title? This is the game I'm referring to:

Ho ho fair enough, that's my bad english and searching for you.

I got the game wrong at anycase, the game I got has a similar name Simulacra is the game I played and is nothing like the game you showed, do not personally recommend Simulacra, was recommended a long time ago and is pretty bad all considering. I got the feeling it couldn't be the same game considering your description didn't really fit what I experienced. The names are just similar enough to throw me off however.

If anything I just got the impression the game I played got overhauled heavily.

Avatar image for byshop
Byshop

20504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#18 Byshop  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 20504 Posts

@RSM-HQ: "I do not disagree that other Survival Horror games have not done this, Resident Evil was not even the first (most credit this to Alone in the Dark). For design and execution however I feel Resident Evil did this really well. I personally feel a lot of people are harsh on The Evil Within because resources are too limited and as such are much more difficult games over its parent series, Resident Evil; which nailed the refinement of all those elements as well as possible without punishing players too harshly."

The original Alone in the Dark is probably the first 2.5D/3D one but there were horror themed games that came before.

"Sound design is very important in Survival Horror in my view and Lickers make a huge scream before going for the big leap attack, while the camera is limiting in what the player can see the tells in audio design alone are helpful for whether or not the player should leave and come back in to reset the room or hug a wall and run around the mutants. Fixed cameras do have a lot to be desired but do feel the audio ques help alleviate the frustration.

Classic complaint in Resi and Silent Hill is an enemy hidden around the corner, and yes it is cheap, I noted Demon's Souls places enemies in a similar manner, classic 'got ya' trope. Difference is unlike Demon's Souls you can hear the enemies if the player is taking it nice and slow in both Resi and with the radio in SH. If anything I feel Survival Horror punishes recklessness.

Maybe because punishing experiences have become more and more rare that is the reason I enjoy them, kinda how I enjoyed the reboot of Ghost n' Goblins while the Game Spot on the easiest difficulty moaned it was too hard. Trail and error can be done horribly wrong I do agree, but I also feel proper trail and error is only for those who are not taking it slow and peeking around corners and using the other senses. I enjoy the Souls series and rarely got caught by the boulder traps and explosions because I saw it coming and prepared myself.

Sure not everyone has the patience for that kind of experience but I also do not feel those kind of games are designed for mass appeal anyhow."

The "Souls" games are good examples of punishing but fair in a lot of ways. There's nothing wrong with a game being hard, but there are ways that a game that be hard that feel challenging but fair while other ways can feel cheap. Alone in the Dark had a lot of pretty cheap death like one section where the floor just dropped with no warning. That's not "challenging".

"I will admit I've tried the original and even a few other Alone in the Dark games. Not personally a fan, I do not think they are designed very well. Happy it kicked off a genre I love so much, but I could not enjoy the games all that much."

This is exactly my point. AitD was extremely well received when it came out because it did some things that no game before it had done before so people didn't care about all the ways in which it was actually a pretty frustrating game. By modern standards, it doesn't hold up very well so without the benefit of nostalgia it's a hard game to recommend to newcomers when there are hundreds of games that have come since that do the same things but much better thanks to technical innovation and even just the concepts of game design evolving and growing.

"Take it all as rumor but I've read around one of the games Blue Point is doing is a faithful remake of the first Silent Hill. I would be curious how that one works out. Personally a fan of all four of the original Silent Hill games but yes the series was always plagued with poor input commands, that was always my biggest gripe with the series. Camera as well would flip out at times."

SH4 has a neat idea with the "room" concept but in terms of gameplay it also had some really lame elements. The inventory system and breakable weapons were frustrating, unkillable but omnipresent enemies, and making you basically backtrack through the entire game with a wounded support character were lame design choices.

"Ho ho fair enough, that's my bad english and searching for you."

No worries. I figured you maybe had the wrong game as there are a few games out there with really similar titles. Based on what you describe as your preference, I think you'd really enjoy the one I was talking about, though. Chapter 1 is free and Chapter 2 is in development:

https://gamejolt.com/games/simulacrum_chapter_one/233384

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
RSM-HQ

11655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 94

User Lists: 1

#19  Edited By RSM-HQ
Member since 2009 • 11655 Posts

@Byshop: Alone in the Dark did something other games simply didn't I suppose and was a foundation for other games to follow, I imagine like Kunio-kun did for Beat em' Ups or Wolfenstein 3D did for the First Person Shooter. That doesn't mean I'll inherently recommend those game.

Too me that goes back to my original post on legacy and quality, the game had a hook but it wasn't fundamentally a solid game. Even looking back when the original Alone in the Dark came out I've played very fun games of that time period. Though in these games cases, it is not that they are designed as lazy products but they are fundamentally just the canvas to work from. Sadly for Alone in the Dark those games didn't exactly get better over time, just found new ways to be bad apparently.

I say this because even back way back when people playing video games had_

Lemmings, Worms, Tetris, Super Mario Bros, Sonic the Hedgehog, Alex Kidd, CastleVania, Streets of Rage, Pac-Man, Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger, the list goes on and on. 80's and the 90's is flooded with solid games; sure many these games came from genres that have had a ton of refinement.

As such we also had games later (like The Thing) that don't really know how to make it work from the idea to game. Comes across as "neat" but it seems we are both in agreement that games need more than that.

The team behind The Thing video game didn't go onto refine the idea later either, it was one and done, and really that is because it's a licence game too, probably also because they ignored a lot of basic design philosophies generations of studios have learned from. I don't want to say the team behind the game lacked talent, yet they clearly skipped a few essential beats and may have been on a very strict deadline, as it shows when playing the game.

Going back to the first big boy in the genre; Alone in the Dark is just another one of those games people enjoyed for doing something different (or the first one worth considering), but its unrefined and not enjoyable to play. Nothing better to play at the time does not by default save the game. I'm not from the 80's or early 90's but even now and when I was younger people would enjoy things more as the new flavor of the month, and zeitgeist mentality over the definition of quality. It happens even now too, thought that is a whole other debate for another time. And AitD seems like that, it was pretty hype for anyone who likes horror but needed a lot of work, that will sadly never came. Luckily other studios picked up the mantle and pushed it in the right direction.

I feel Sonic Adventure is a perfect example for this, many saw it at the time as Sonic the Hedgehogs cool game that looked great, reason to buy a Dreamcast. At the time people stating it was 'just as good as 3D Mario, or better'

And was it, is it? no, sorry Sonic the Hedgehog fans the game is pretty bad, and always was. I would argue that Sonic Teams legacy is similar to the people who make AitD too, I haven't personally liked a Team Sonic game since Nights into Dreams (the PS2 remake was great too)

I think you'd really enjoy the one I was talking about, though. Chapter 1 is free and Chapter 2 is in development

Yeah after watching the video I grabbed the first one to play at somepoint, looks like something I will enjoy. Appreciate the recommendation, the ascetics alone are very 128-bit Survival Horror, which for me was the best overall generation for the genre.

Avatar image for byshop
Byshop

20504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#20 Byshop  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 20504 Posts

@RSM-HQ: I think we're saying basically the same thing. My only difference is that "good" and "bad" are fundamentally a bit subjective and can change over time. I played Alone in the Dark 1 when it was brand new and at the time I thought it was pretty awesome, but there are so many dated aspects of the design that it doesn't hold up. Original RE1 and RE2 are way better games, and I thought so at that time. They hold up better but their limitations are such that I don't feel compelled to ever play through them again (I did A and B scenarios in both orders and unlocked Hunk and Tofu in RE2 back in the day) and unless someone is just really dying to understand the history of all the games that came before I don't think a lot of modern gamers would be willing to go back. That's why the remakes are so compelling, because they took the great parts of those games and built upon them with a modern foundation.

I agree with your list of games that have held up over time versus ones that are bad. All I'm saying is when we look back at a game and say "this game was never really all that game", sometimes that opinion comes from the benefit of hindsight. AitD was very well received at the time in spite of all of the things that are obviously wrong with it now. Sonic Adventure is another example. Compared to the 2D Sonics before it, it left a lot to be desired but at the time people thought it was pretty cool. IGN rated it 8.6 on its initial Dreamcast release. 10 years later when it was ported to XBLA, they gave it a 3.5. Some of the complaints were about the quality of the port, but most of the review was spent questioning whether the game was ever any good in the first place.

There are games there were well regarded in their time that are still fun to play today. Classic Sonic, Metroid, Castlevania, early era RPGs, etc. Then there are games that were considered good at the time but seem pretty bad in retrospect like Alone in the Dark and Sonic Adventure. Then there are games that didn't seem that good even then and haven't gotten any better over the years. I'd put The Thing in this camp, unfortunately, which is too bad because I really wanted to like it at the time. There weren't a ton of survival horror games in that era (unlike now where you can't throw a rock without hitting an indie survival horror title) but this game came out the same year as the RE1-make for Gamecube so even then there were way better Survival Horror games around. However, if a developer wanted to take another stab at the concept, maybe as a complete remake like Capcom did with RE2 and 3, I'd love to see something like that.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
RSM-HQ

11655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 94

User Lists: 1

#21  Edited By RSM-HQ
Member since 2009 • 11655 Posts
@Byshop said:

@RSM-HQ: I think we're saying basically the same thing. My only difference is that "good" and "bad" are fundamentally a bit subjective and can change over time.

I can agree on that. Fun, good and bad is all up for interpretation. Only thing I bring forward is trying my best to explain what I personally consider is the good or the bad in a gaming experience and expect no one but myself to follow that mentality. It's more for context reason that I try to explain it all. Not always clear cut what gets someone to enjoy or dislike a game, because everyone likes games for various reasons.

For some a story and graphics is enough to carry a game as a great, while I personally consider a tad 'hollow/ shallow' for gaming, that can offer so much more.

Though if that is enough for them? by all means they can have all the fun that offers. Some like lemons, some like limes.

Regardless just a chill back and forward. I enjoy the ease of such a conversation, and felt you explained yourself well and tried to do so in turn. Too many conversations users feel the need to one up or be aggressive about a subject matter, just having a interesting conversation with conflicting views about games is exactly why I signed up to these forums. Seeing other perspectives on the hobby and giving my own.

AitD was very well received at the time in spite of all of the things that are obviously wrong with it now.

Truth is I can just never consider that perspective because it really was way before my time. I can only compare it to games that received similar stances to that, which also got labelled 'good for its time' and I was around to fairly judge them on release.

I've played many games older than Alone in the Dark, not all great either, however feel many have given me such a rich experience that using a ''old=bad'' just isn't a valid excuse when so many conflict with the remark. For me it comes down to every generation of games cannot be filled with winners without having losers as well. Some are middle-ground for sure and range due to the good and the bad. Regardless not all games are going to be as good as The Secret of Monkey Island, Pandemonium, or Elite Dangerous; some will be Custer's Revenge, Bubsy 3D, and Anthem.

I'm certainly not going to call Alone in the Dark the worst gaming series I've ever played (too harsh) Games like AitD make me feel 'can't find anything to latch on to for enjoyment.' And I cannot truly say because it is old, yet can say it is because it was not very enjoyable from my experience with it.

Have a niche love-hate relationship for a series called Splatterhouse, they are pretty bad overall, though I still have played them and have beaten them numerous times. I like to try and think that is how Alone in the Dark fans feel, it is bad but has something that is somewhat appealing, it's just tough to find under all the faults.

Sonic Adventure is another example. Compared to the 2D Sonics before it, it left a lot to be desired but at the time people thought it was pretty cool. IGN rated it8.6 on its initial Dreamcast release. 10 years later when it was ported to XBLA,they gave it a 3.5. Some of the complaints were about the quality of the port, but most of the review was spent questioning whether the game was ever any good in the first place.

Was pretty young when the Dreamcast was relevant but everyone was insane over the Sonic game and recall the hype around the game, it was all the talk but once a few years came-and-went that love and admiration quickly turned to spite and loathe for the game. Personally tried the Gamecube version and after an hour, could play no more. . I actually like SEGA but that game blows.

if a developer wanted to take another stab at the concept, maybe as a complete remake like Capcom did with RE2 and 3, I'd love to see something like that.

It's tough to be that person but Among Us is basically The Thing video game done right. All it would need is a full 3D world, accurate ascetics to the movie, and a great art direction and you've got a perfect The Thing video game. Personally I do not dislike Among Us but it is a bit obtuse at times for replayability.

Avatar image for byshop
Byshop

20504

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By Byshop  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 20504 Posts

@RSM-HQ: Yeah, I'm old and I played most every game when it came out, going all the way back to Atari 2600 and original IBM PC/C64 games.

And yeah, that's a good point. Among Us is basically The Thing in multiplayer.

Avatar image for pillarrocks
pillarrocks

3621

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 46

User Lists: 0

#23 pillarrocks
Member since 2005 • 3621 Posts

I remember my brother bought the PS2 version. I could never beat the game or figure out what to do. I definitely would love to see a remake of The Thing.

Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
Black_Knight_00

77

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#24 Black_Knight_00
Member since 2007 • 77 Posts

I did, it was aggressively mediocre. The IP deserves better. Now that Among Us has become popular they could do a social game like that, but with AAA production values.