Alone in the Dark: The Trilogy 1+2+3

Obviously graphics and controls are going to be dated by modern standards. But, it could still be worth it to see the grandfather of survival horror games. The first game holds up moderately well. Combat is pretty awful with enemies stunlocking you or you stunlocking them and no in between. You will have to save frequently because it is so easy to die from getting stuck in a corner or instant kills. Despite those flaws, the first game does have an interesting setting with a nice horror atmosphere and Lovecraftian influences. Overall, an okay, short experience. The next two games are frankly not worth playing. The franchise immediately nosedives after the first game which is probably why the series died out so quickly unlike Resident Evil, the franchise it inspired. The next two games basically completely abandon the horror setting for campy action and force combat way more frequently than the first one. However, there are no improvements to the combat system. So, you're forced to mess around with the tank controls trying to aim with no reticle while the enemies can track onto you. And Edward takes about 3 whole seconds to fire his gun, so the stunlocking issue persists. The Resident Evil series clearly understood the necessity of adding a lock on to this control system. Unfortunately, the Alone in the Dark devs were not as inspired, and so combat continues to suck and has become the main focus of 2 and 3 leading to an overall enjoyable experience. Likewise, the puzzles become more and more obtuse. The game feels like a point and click adventure game with the logical hoops you have to jump through to know what to do. However unlike point and click adventure games, there is no way to inspect the environment or your inventory to get hints about how you should be using your items. It's still worth it for the first game when it goes on sale for 1.49 (which it does frequently) if you really want to play old classics. I'd skip the next two though.

It was the first horror game I've played. And I'm not gonna fool you: it practically created a genre, and in 1992 it was graphically revolutionary. But it's a hard game (like every single other game at the time, remember that PC gaming was more concentrated, with a smaller/hardcore public). So before you buy it, consider that you'll have no clue of what to do. I mean it. Derceto mansion is a sandbox, so'll you solve puzzles in a non-linear way: there are no maps, documents that tell you what to do or other characters. Every object has a purpose, so when you pick up a big pot of rotten soup, keep in mind that it may save your life. This also applies to enemies and 'enviromental' hazards, which can be outsmarted in some interesting ways. You'll have tough time playing this game, but if you do it alone in the dark, you'll discover why a creepy story and unforgiving gameplay made this game such a legend. -SIDEBAR- You didn't expect it to be easy, right?

(bonus if you get the title reference without googling.) AiD is a hard game to review. It created the survival horror genre, and deserves mad props for that. However, the primitive control scheme is epic, unreservedly, bad, and 20 hours practice will still leave you flailing. The graphics are mind-numbing ugly...except they kinda work for the game. Not at all perfect, honor it for swinging for the fences, and having a wonderful Lovecraft inspired story. Also a seminal PC game (yes I mean seminal in the original sense)

I had always heard that Alone in the Dark was the grandfather of my favorite genre (survival horror), but I had never given any thought to playing it until I saw it so cheap here on GOG. Let me just say that it was worth the money. Since the package includes all 3 of the original Alone in the Dark games, I'll metion each seperately: Alone in the Dark: It's definitely earned it's title as "The Grandfather of Survival Horror". So many tropes that later appeared in Resident Evil and Silent Hill started in this game. Not only that, but I was surprised to find that the voice acting was decent (something rare for older games), and the controls were bearable (something rare for Survival Horror). On top of that, it's genuinely interesting, and the puzzles usually aren't TOO difficult or nonsensical. 10/10. Alone in the Dark 2: Alright, this one is a bit sillier. It's lost the Lovecraftian theme in favor of pirates. However, the combat has been polished, and the controls are much better than the previous game. The whole game carries an atmosphere of whimsy and fun, something most can appreciate. It's not as good as the first, but it's fun. 9/10. Alone in the Dark 3: I didn't like this one as much. The controls and combat were just as they were in AitD2, but it's just not as good. It lacks the disturbing solitude and darkness of the first game, and it doesn't have the fun of the second. Not only that, but the puzzles are really, REALLY ridiculous. I had to consult the walkthrough multiple times because I didn't know that I had to use a playing card on a tombstone to activate an elavator, or use a bottle of ammonia on a door in order to not get impaled. However, it does redeem itself by featuring a boss fight with a cyborg-ghost-cowboy. Play it if you like, but don't feel shameful if you have to look on the internet for a solution. 6/10. All in all, though, definitely worth your 6 dollars. You won't regret it.

Without this trilogy, the Survival Horror genre would not have looked like it does today. We have Alone in the Dark 1 + 2 & 3 to thank for that.