Wow, I thought it would be another hack and slash borefactory, but this is really amazing. It is basically a sequel, if you will, to Alice in wonderland. Not the Disnified version, but the original opium laced story. It is just as strange, but much darker.
I get kinda 'CD cover'ish below, but its pretty accurate. I have played it for a few hours now, and every new level knocks me over. The voice acting is superb, and the gameplay is pretty enticing. Alice's slaying of the card-soldiers is pretty gruesome, but this is just a dream, remember?
Poor Alice is caught in a housefire that kills her parents and family, leaving her near death. The stress causes her to retreat into her mind, or so her psychiatrist at the Rutledge Private Clinic and Asylum believes.
Either way, she begins an adventure in wonderland once more. It has been twisted, terribly dark now, by the Red Queen. Alice must save wonderland if she is ever to wake up from her nightmare.
All her old friends are there, the rabbit and cheshire cat appear early on. Rabbit has been telling people Alice is their saviour, and Cat, he's just there to help her on her way. Even they have not avoided the demented bending of wonderland.
I like it so far, but I've only made it as far as the Fortress of Doors
This game is definitely one of my favorites, and I normally don't like FPSs.Ã, The level design in this game is some of the most creative I've ever seen.Ã, And the Cheshire Cat is so awesome.
American McGee is working on a Wizard of Oz game right now.
They have that game for 10 bucks at Wal-Mart (US department store) and I haven't bought it cuz I havent heard a damn thing about it... but I think when I get back from Iraq I'll go out to get it... sounds fun... GORE!!!!
I saw it at the Virgin Megastore in London the other day - you could get three budget-release games for 10 pounds or something like that, I wanted Alice and Thief 2 but couldn't find a third one, so I put it back on the shelf. Maybe I should take another look'at the Virgin Megastore at the airport when I'm going home.
Quote from: Migs on Fri 02/07/2004 15:53:12
This game is definitely one of my favorites, and I normally don't like FPSs.Ã,Â
You can see your character in that game, therefore it's not a FPS (First-Person-Shooter). It's a third-person action game.
But yeah, I've heard a lot of good stuff about that game, but it's been out for maybe a little less than 4 years.
If you like Alice, you should try Beyond Good & Evil. It's way on the other side of the map when it comes to atmosphere (Alice being bloody and evil, Beyond Good & Evil being cartoony), but Beyond Good & Evil has some fun gameplay, puzzles, and combat. And if you like Beyond Good & Evil, try Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time as it was made using the same engine as Beyond Good & Evil.
I played it all the way through soon after it came out. It was quite fun. Wonderful style and art and the gameplay was fun. I should dig it out and play it again.
I have a question for the people who played it, in the demo the Chesire Cat's teeth disappeared first when he faded out which is totally awkward and wrong... Did they fix that in the whole game?
also:
http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/56.html
I love this review
I own this game, but my computer had a hard time running it. So when i get a better computer, i will reinstall it and play it again.
I at least got to see the first level, and the graphics are really sweet.
American McGee's Alice is a brilliant game, i have a copy and loved it. Didn't McGee work on Doom?
I played a demo of Beyond Good and Evil... it looks sweet as hell, and was fun to play... I'll have to go get that too... I dunno if I should for PC or for my PS 2 though
Rather than fading out last or anything, Evil, they fade in and out in a cycle. (I suppose they might fade out first by coincidence) You rarely get a chance to watch him fade out up close, so I hadn't even noticed. Wasn't that a feature introduced by Disney anyway (Alice is even a brunette in the game, so they were trying to part with Disney precedent.) It is amazing how close the voice acting for Alice (the character) was to the Disney actress, though. Its strange to hear her say "Grown a bit mangy Cat, I see." at the beginning. lol
I have played Tomb Raider, as well as several of the more hyped FPS games, and never found much interest in them. Half life was pretty good, and I am looking forward to HL2. I have never played anything quite Alice. Being 4 years old, its still amazing to look at IMO. I think the Greek letters and skull accents on her costume were a bad idea, considering she is supposed to be the heroine.
So far, the 'menu screen' has struck me as the most frightening thing. Alice sitting on a 19th century hospital bed clutching a singed and tattered rabbit, with eyes *too* wide for reality. The image is still, but they added animated 'highlights' from lightning, and it adds some eerie feeling to the image. Makes me cringe imagining the 'treatments' the mentally unbalanced were given back then. O.o
by evil i take it you mean me, eh Hollister Man?
and no, the chesire cat's grin was a part of the books.
oops, ;) sorry, I was writing at work. Why did I think that I wonder?
umm...Migs my man...im afraid the Wizard of Oz game from McGee aint comin anymore...Atari's called off the deal...its cancelled. :(
http://www.gamershell.com/news_bOZbCancelled.shtml
go here^^^
Quote from: Hollister Man on Sat 03/07/2004 22:39:37
oops, ;)Ã, sorry, I was writing at work.Ã, Why did I think that I wonder?
Because Eric is EEEEVIL!
Quote from: Capn MucousArts on Sun 04/07/2004 13:48:39
umm...Migs my man...I'm afraid the Wizard of Oz game from McGee aint comin anymore...Atari's called off the deal...its cancelled. :(
Ã, http://www.gamershell.com/news_bOZbCancelled.shtml
Ã, Ã, go here^^^
Thanks for letting me know. How disappointing.
hmm...funny...but we still got some hope migs...American McGee and "MercurySteamEntertaintment" r working on a new Project...ScrapLand!!
for more info about the game--->http://www.americanmcgee.com/blosxom.cgi/home/
ENJOY!!
I thought about Alice after having played it, and IMO, it's not so great a game so much as it is visually stunning. Game-wise, I really don't think there's all that much about it that was so great.
Still, it's well worth playing for the visuals alone. There's some weird and wonderful stuff going on in that game. If you can find it on the cheap, I'd say play it for sure.
It's an impressive game from a visual perspective. But I was constantly irritated by a deep lack of understanding of the books that was displayed.
Mind you, it's fasionable to mis-understnad the books these days. The idea of it being "opium fuled" and nightmarish is enormously over-interpreting. They're amazingly weird books, but they weren't written under the influence of any drugs, and they're not particularly dark really.
People are always trying to make Alice in Wonderland somehow dark and gothic when it's not.
Mind you, the game doesn't take away the books, and it's not like anyone will re-write the novels to match the game or anything. So I guess it doesn't matter that an American (who must be pretty damn amazing to have his name put in the game's title! even the Mario chap hasn't done that yet!) didn't "get" it. And it's not a bad game by any streatch of the imagination...
I guess I'm just a little precious about the books (which are quite brilliant in their simple charm) and get cross when people want to capitalise on a general mis-understanding of them...
Now the moomins: They WERE scary and gothic!
Quote from: Captain Mostly on Wed 07/07/2004 13:41:04It's an impressive game from a visual perspective. But I was constantly irritated by a deep lack of understanding of the books that was displayed.
Mind you, it's fasionable to mis-understnad the books these days. The idea of it being "opium fuled" and nightmarish is enormously over-interpreting. They're amazingly weird books, but they weren't written under the influence of any drugs, and they're not particularly dark really.
Who, praytell, claimed this?
Quote from: Captain Mostly on Wed 07/07/2004 13:41:04People are always trying to make Alice in Wonderland somehow dark and gothic when it's not.
I know.Ã, I run into at least two people a day doing precisely this.Ã, "I'm making a gothic version of Alice in Wonderland!" they blurt out, as they thrust character sketches of a deformed Cheshire Cat in my face.
Quote from: Captain Mostly on Wed 07/07/2004 13:41:04Mind you, the game doesn't take away the books, and it's not like anyone will re-write the novels to match the game or anything. So I guess it doesn't matter that an American (who must be pretty damn amazing to have his name put in the game's title! even the Mario chap hasn't done that yet!) didn't "get" it. And it's not a bad game by any streatch of the imagination...
I guess I'm just a little precious about the books (which are quite brilliant in their simple charm) and get cross when people want to capitalise on a general mis-understanding of them...
Apparently you are incapable of recognizing and appreciating artistic creativity, and your nonsensical rambling makes absolutely no sense to me.Ã, American McGee's Alice is an intentionally dark twist to a popular story, not an attempt at faithfully replicating it in game form.Ã, I think you entirely missed the point of the game, and I seriously doubt you've even read Lewis Carroll's books at all if you think American McGee's Alice was an attempt at a 1:1 version of it.
(http://www3.sympatico.ca/santiar/straw.JPG)
Might as well get it over with...
While I think Migs was on a bit of a rant, but I agree. I have had great fun playing it. It is made such that even if her original adventure in Wonderland wasn't a dream (or nightmare), this Wonderland is inside her mind and a metaphor for her mind. She is deeply troubled by her tragedy and needs to work out her guilt.
And yes, I felt that the original was opium induced, but not necessarily. It was probably as innocent as the poppies and snow in the Wizard of Oz (Poppies being the source of opium/heroin, and snow being a name for said heroin). It is hard for anyone to say now.
Oh migs. With your cunning de-construction of my comments, you've made me seem so stupid. I apologise completly, and take back everything I said, 100%
American McGee's take on the story is not derivative, OR based on a lack of understnading of the books which I now realise (after you helped me see the truth) I've never read, especially not studied the history of, and CERTAINLY not lived in a house named after an aspect of one of the poems contained within.
ALSO: I now see that "opium fuled" doesn't imply any idea that it was written under the influence of drugs, and I've never heard of ANYONE trying to make out it's a gothic pair of books before in my whole life.
You are a wonderful and brilliant person and I'd just LOVE to be as perceptive and clever as you are. It must be simply brilliant to have everything so clear to you, not to mention to always be right all the time!
I'm divided about this issue.
Sometimes reinterpretations of certain media types enhance the overall story by adding a new perspective. For example, look at Kubrick's reinterpretation of the ending of A Clockwork Orange in comaparison to Anthony's Burgess' novel.
Hoever, sometimes a reinterpretation can contain little substance when compared to the original. I remember reading an article by Dan Knauf about his meeting with a producer who wanted to turn Twelve Angry Men into an action film starring Bruce Willis (I shit you not).
I tend to think American McGee's Alice belongs in the later category. Sure, it's fun. But will it be remembered as much as the novel? I doubt it.
The Clockwork orange change was quite good. I beleive if Kubrick had used the books ending it would have had people in uproar complaining about such a let-down of an ending, while the way he chose o finish it was quite good.
Quote from: Captain Mostly on Thu 08/07/2004 09:06:50
Oh migs. With your cunning de-construction of my comments, you've made me seem so stupid. I apologise completly, and take back everything I said, 100%
American McGee's take on the story is not derivative, OR based on a lack of understnading of the books which I now realise (after you helped me see the truth) I've never read, especially not studied the history of, and CERTAINLY not lived in a house named after an aspect of one of the poems contained within.
ALSO: I now see that "opium fuled" doesn't imply any idea that it was written under the influence of drugs, and I've never heard of ANYONE trying to make out it's a gothic pair of books before in my whole life.
You are a wonderful and brilliant person and I'd just LOVE to be as perceptive and clever as you are. It must be simply brilliant to have everything so clear to you, not to mention to always be right all the time!
Sarcasm noted. I also note you entirely ignored my point.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 08/07/2004 10:30:35
I'm divided about this issue.
Sometimes reinterpretations of certain media types enhance the overall story by adding a new perspective. For example, look at Kubrick's reinterpretation of the ending of A Clockwork Orange in comaparison to Anthony's Burgess' novel.
Hoever, sometimes a reinterpretation can contain little substance when compared to the original. I remember reading an article by Dan Knauf about his meeting with a producer who wanted to turn Twelve Angry Men into an action film starring Bruce Willis (I shit you not).
I tend to think American McGee's Alice belongs in the later category. Sure, it's fun. But will it be remembered as much as the novel? I doubt it.
If you don't think a reinterpretation is good, just reject it, but I think most attempts at reinterpreting classics are worthwhile endeavors. I'm not sure I would really consider American McGee's Alice a reinterpretation, though. It's more of a dark parody. It's a unique story, and bears little semblance to the original except in theme.
I've not ignored it, but because I've aparently (according to you) not read the book I don't feel in a position to pass useful comment on it.
Since I'm clearly a jibbering idiot with no knowlage of the subject, I can't imagine why you'd want me to respond to whatever argument you're alluding to.
I'm going to have to agree with Captain Mostly here. The books were NOT influenced by drugs (read any biography on Charles Dodgeson and you'll see) and they were actually very innocent stories. As a person who's had an obsession with the books for quite a few years now, I've studied quite a lot about the matter.
The reason I liked the game was because of how dark it was compared to the original stories. I felt like it was less of a "sequel" and more of a stand-alone story based on the stories.
Quote from: Migs on Thu 08/07/2004 15:06:41
If you don't think a reinterpretation is good, just reject it, but I think most attempts at reinterpreting classics are worthwhile endeavors.Ã, I'm not sure I would really consider American McGee's Alice a reinterpretation, though.Ã, It's more of a dark parody.Ã, It's a unique story, and bears little semblance to the original except in theme.
For a start, a parody is a reinterpretation. It's reinterpretating literary work for ridicule and mockery.
And secondly, while I agree the game is a parody, I don't think it's the best kind of parody. I say this because the ridicule is really one note: portray the world as a gothic nightmare. It doesn't really deconstruct the original material. And after you get over the original joke, the game just becomes an actioner.
I think a game like Duke Nukem 3D is a better action parody, because it is spoofing several things at once (films, games, etc). It's clever, while still being a playable game.
Not that that detracts from the playablity of Alice. I just feel that it falls into that "Twelve Angry Men" category I mentioned before. It's just doesn't transcend above the original in any way.
I haven't played the game so I can't comment on whether I think it's good or bad, but I gather the general concensus is that it's an alright game but nothing revolutionary.
I had to totally agree with CM on the point of people constantly doing things like this. When I was a kid, I saw a couple of gothic type versions of Alice in Wonderland and thought, "Ah yeah, cool". To this day, I've probably come across hundreds of stories/ short films/ artworks / etc that parody the original story putting a "dark" twist on it, and I'm just so utterly sick of it by now :) It's one of those things people think "Wow! I'm being sooooo original" with, and it just makes me groan and roll my eyes. If someone just wants to do something artsy with it, fair enough, but I just can't stand people thinking they're doing something original.
Also, like has been said, the original books weren't that weird (in a "dark" sense), and they were BORING. I remember reading them for the first time and just being so utterly disappointed. All the shows and movies I'd seen led me to believe that the books must be fantastical, well-written journeys... they were just so average. I give the guy kudos for the ideas in it, but the writing and execution just bores me to tears. (Unlike the Oz books, which are freaking unbelievably wonderful! ^_^).
I still want to have a go at the game at some point, but I'd just love to see someone do a nice, relatively innocent version of the books for a change, instead of being so "OMG im so dark & goth!!1" about it.
alice is a nice game with excellent level-design but i somehow miss some kind of deeper story that i was expecting after the first hours. anyway, for me it was one of the best action-games because of the bunch of good ideas for instance implemented in the chess/gearwheel-levels
but carroll's original text of it is of course still better (and - if you have a look at the pictures - also somehow handling with a nightmare) than the game, which could have been better in several points.
I can't say I've noticed Alice being all that much more prone to dark reimaginings than most other children's literature (Svankmajer's version was pretty disturbing, but the Disney version evens the scales). Nor have I ever heard it refered to as a gothic story.
However, I think a good argument can be made that Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass are nightmarish. They take place in worlds where rationality has broken down, and that is a scary thing to children of a certain age (in particular). If you read (or more likely were read) the books at the right age, they would probably frighten you. And that's not to mention menacing stuff like "Off with their heads!" In fact, if the stories are dreamlike, I'd argue that they resemble nightmares more than any other kind of dream.
Even if you disagree with this, I think it's inaccurate to say that McGee didn't "get it" for making the Alice game so dark. He didn't make it dark because he thought the original stories were dark. He made it dark because they were not. If you are trying to shock or disturb, violating something innocent is a simple but effective trick. (For another examle, just take Larry Flynt's pornographic cartoon featuring Dorothy from Wizard of Oz. Instant controversy!) Horror writers, of course, do this kind of thing all the time. In my opinion, it's a valid (though increasingly tired) device, and should be judged on the quality of the execution.
I've only played a couple of levels of Alice (I didn't care for the platform gameplay), but I've heard good things about the darker story McGee weaves around Wonderland elements. So while the twist may not be very original, it appears it is at least exectuted competently.
Finally, I'd just like to say that there is a weird kind of symmetry in creating darker versions of children's classics like Alice. After all, most children's fairy tales have been bowdlerized from original stories that were much more violent and sexually explicit. (Little Red Riding Hood is the classic example.) These overtones and psychological motifs, not fully supressed even in the nursery versions, are part of what gives the stories their eerie potency. I imagine a nimbus of adult versions of Alice floating around the original stories, and I think it can only increase their richness and strangeness.
QuoteEven if you disagree with this, I think it's inaccurate to say that McGee didn't "get it" for making the Alice game so dark. He didn't make it dark because he thought the original stories were dark. He made it dark because they were not. If you are trying to shock or disturb, violating something innocent is a simple but effective trick. (For another examle, just take Larry Flynt's pornographic cartoon featuring Dorothy from Wizard of Oz. Instant controversy!) Horror writers, of course, do this kind of thing all the time. In my opinion, it's a valid (though increasingly tired) device, and should be judged on the quality of the execution.
I'm not saying that McGee didn't get it. I'm saying that it's a game of little substance compared to the original text. It's like taking A Streetcar Named Desire and remaking it as an action film. Sure, it's possible to make such a film and still "get it" through reinterpretation, but I doubt the concept would stand anywhere close to the original text due to lack of substance.
I also think you can't really compare Alice to your example of Flynt's Dorothy cartoon. Firstly, Flynt's cartoon was a single-shot comic, where a one-note joke (such as the corruption of innocence) is possible. For a whole game, you need more than something one-note.
And secondly, Flynt's cartoon was only controversial because it was released during a time of conflicting sexual attitudes. McGee's Alice isn't all that controversial. It's very tame compared to something like GTA 3 (which I classify a very controversial, partially due to it's modern-day violence and partially due to it's satirical look at urban society).
Sure, I'm all for art that corrupts innocence to make a point. But for McGee's Alice, I don't think it does it very well. As you say it "should be judged on the quality of the execution". And I don't think its artistic value was executed well.
Not only that, it's hard to mix genres like that. Is it a parody? Is it horror? Is it an actioner? You see, it's hard to take seriously because it seems to cross between genres very rapidly, never knowing what it really is. A game like Grim Fandango can cross between noir and comical genres well because it does it in a more subtle way. That's why I think McGee's Alice doesn't work well as a "scary" game or a "parody" game.
But like I said, this doesn't detract from the gameplay. As said, it's got a good level design and it does keep you interested. But it's not a game of substance when compared to the original text.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 11/07/2004 13:31:50
I'm not saying that McGee didn't get it.
No, but Captain Mostly did.
QuoteI'm saying that it's a game of little substance compared to the original text. It's like taking A Streetcar Named Desire and remaking it as an action film. Sure, it's possible to make such a film and still "get it" through reinterpretation, but I doubt the concept would stand anywhere close to the original text due to lack of substance.
I think it's pointless to compare the "substance" of a computer platform game with that of two books. Of course the game is not going to be as substantial!
Let me put it this way: I don't think the game would have been any more substantial if it had stuck more closely to Lewis Carroll's vision.
QuoteI also think you can't really compare Alice to your example of Flynt's Dorothy cartoon. Firstly, Flynt's cartoon was a single-shot comic, where a one-note joke (such as the corruption of innocence) is possible. For a whole game, you need more than something one-note.
It was just meant to show that the juxtaposition of something (seen as) innocent and something judged corrupt can have a strong effect. For an example where the effect is more sustained, take all the horror films with dolls/puppets.
As I mentioned, I haven't really played the game a lot, but from what I've read, the "dark Wonderland" is actually a fairly complex, multi-layered story. You start out thinking that it's just the game taking elements and characters from the Alice stories in an action game. The whole idea that Alice is growing up and that's why Wonderland is more "adult" quickly comes up. Then it is revealed that this dark world is the psychosis of a girl in a mental asylum, which raises questions about the original Wonderland as well. Then players have to uncover the hidden psychological meanings of the obstacles in the fantasy world, find out the truth about Alice's childhood, and (I assume) overcome her dementia.
If that description is broadly correct, I would say it's a remarkably thorough exploration of a multi-faceted idea, not a "one-joke" concept.
QuoteAnd secondly, Flynt's cartoon was only controversial because it was released during a time of conflicting sexual attitudes. McGee's Alice isn't all that controversial. It's very tame compared to something like GTA 3 (which I classify a very controversial,Ã, partially due to it's modern-day violence and partially due to it's satirical look at urban society).
Sure, I'm all for art that corrupts innocence to make a point. But for McGee's Alice, I don't think it does it very well. As you say it "should be judged on the quality of the execution". And I don't think its artistic value was executed well.
That's you prerogative. I haven't played it enough to really tell, I'm mostly just going from reviews I've read. However, most of the discussion up until now has been about whether the concept of a "dark Alice" is worth doing or not, I haven't seen any arguments for why you think this game doesn't do it very well.
QuoteNot only that, it's hard to mix genres like that. Is it a parody? Is it horror? Is it an actioner? You see, it's hard to take seriously because it seems to cross between genres very rapidly, never knowing what it really is. A game like Grim Fandango can cross between noir and comical genres well because it does it in a more subtle way. That's why I think McGee's Alice doesn't work well as a "scary" game or a "parody" game.
In the bits I played, I didn't really notice any parody elements. (Having jokes does not make it a parody.)
QuoteBut like I said, this doesn't detract from the gameplay. As said, it's got a good level design and it does keep you interested. But it's not a game of substance when compared to the original text.
Everyone has pretty good points. I was rather surprised by some of the insights, to tell the truth. On the topic of nighmare-ish things, I used to be a very consistent lucid dreamer. I often could tell I was dreaming, but it led to constant paranoia that I was still asleep.
Anyway, I was watching an episode of Northern Exposure, (the one where the DJ starts losing the ability to speak properly,) and he was dreaming of animals. All of a sudden I realized that he was seeing animals that were missing something. A giraffe without a neck/head, just a head running by...etc. It was so startling and strange that I actually used my old check system for telling if I was awake. I haven't done that in years, weird huh?
Back to the topic, I suppose...
Quote from: Snarky on Sun 11/07/2004 15:40:28
No, but Captain Mostly did.
My mistake, yes he did.
QuoteI think it's pointless to compare the "substance" of a computer platform game with that of two books. Of course the game is not going to be as substantial!
Let me put it this way: I don't think the game would have been any more substantial if it had stuck more closely to Lewis Carroll's vision.
I disagree. For example, I think LucasArts' Fate of Atlantis has as much substance as the Indy movies. And what about Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? Blade Runner too? Thus, I think it's fair to say you can make a computer game with as much substance as other media formats.
QuoteIf that description is broadly correct, I would say it's a remarkably thorough exploration of a multi-faceted idea, not a "one-joke" concept.
But I think if that's the case, the game is trying too hard at being "deep". A game like Hitman or Deus Ex does this sort of multi-faceted exploration so much better (especially Hitman from a psychological standpoint).
QuoteThat's you prerogative. I haven't played it enough to really tell, I'm mostly just going from reviews I've read. However, most of the discussion up until now has been about whether the concept of a "dark Alice" is worth doing or not, I haven't seen any arguments for why you think this game doesn't do it very well.
I'm not disputing dark Alice at all. I just don't think it was done very well and explained why.
QuoteIn the bits I played, I didn't really notice any parody elements. (Having jokes does not make it a parody.)
Migs previously said it was a parody. I was responding to him. However, while it's true that it's not jokes that makes parody, it's the ridicule of certain elements that does make a parody. And McGee's Alice does ridicule, and as I've said I don't think it does it very well.
QuoteQuote
I think it's pointless to compare the "substance" of a computer platform game with that of two books. Of course the game is not going to be as substantial!
Let me put it this way: I don't think the game would have been any more substantial if it had stuck more closely to Lewis Carroll's vision.
I disagree. For example, I think LucasArts' Fate of Atlantis has as much substance as the Indy movies. And what about Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? Blade Runner too? Thus, I think it's fair to say you can make a computer game with as much substance as other media formats.
Not to mention Stephen King's The Mist, or The Dark Eye, based on Edgar Allan Poe's stories... and since the argument here brought up is more about the actual substance of the game, rather than the substance of a game which is inspired on something else, need I remind anyone of names such as Gabriel Knight, or Black Dahlia? Or, once again, Grim Fandango? The fact that they're games doesn't means they're less substancial, on the contrary, I'm here to tell you the Gabe Knight games are way better than the books (although the Beast Within novel is truly superb! Much better than the first one, and a fine achievement in itself).
Quote from: Hollister Man on Fri 02/07/2004 15:45:42
is basically a sequel, if you will, to Alice in wonderland.Ã,Â
There is a sequel, its called through the looking glass
Quote from: redruM on Wed 14/07/2004 07:04:17
need I remind anyone of names such as Gabriel Knight, or Black Dahlia? Or, once again, Grim Fandango? The fact that they're games doesn't means they're less substancial, on the contrary, I'm here to tell you the Gabe Knight games are way better than the books (although the Beast Within novel is truly superb! Much better than the first one, and a fine achievement in itself).
I always thought that the books were based on the games.
And having said that, I feel the books seem to have less substance than the games (but I can't make a decent judgement because I haven't read the books, so I'm going on gut instinct here).
I also thought GF was an original game and wasn't based on a novel.
But Black Dahlia was based on the James Ellroy novel, yes.
I know that LT, I said 'if you will,' I have never read through "Through the Looking Glass" but did read a bit of the original. As I have said, I am really surprised the life this thread has taken on. I was writing it assuming that Alice was a pretty unknown game, and thought some of ya'll would like the tip. ;)
I happen to like the concept of the game a lot, although it would have made a better story, perhaps. What really WOULD happen if the Queen went berserk? If Wonderland really was simply part of Alice's subconcious, what kind of changes would there be if she went from a childlike innocence to self pity, fear, and anger that came after her parent's death? Would Wonderland become the dark place McGee depicted? Who knows.
DG, I think you mis-read me - I gave examples of original games with substance, because of the sentence which read
QuoteI think it's pointless to compare the "substance" of a computer platform game with that of two books. Of course the game is not going to be as substantial!
The issue here isn't changing a story from one medium to another - that issue has been debated between books and movies for years. The issue is the assumption that a computer game is less substantial than the book. Just like with some movies, that's extremely limiting, and so I gave examples of games that were actually much more substantial in games than some books around, and even focused on a case where the games spawned the books. Yes, you're right, the books came AFTER Gabe Knight, that was part of my point. And I must say I'm confused by you saying you don't think the books are as substantial as the game when you haven't tried them! Here's an advice - skip GK1, if you like, but you should give the book GK2 a go. Really.
The GAME Black Dahlia was based on a novel? Are you sure? I think it's an original story, inspired by the Black Dahlia case and the Cleveland Torso Murderer case - all real-life facts.
Quote from: redruM on Fri 16/07/2004 20:02:14
DG, I think you mis-read me - I gave examples of original games with substance, because of the sentence which read
QuoteI think it's pointless to compare the "substance" of a computer platform game with that of two books. Of course the game is not going to be as substantial!
The issue here isn't changing a story from one medium to another - that issue has been debated between books and movies for years. The issue is the assumption that a computer game is less substantial than the book. Just like with some movies, that's extremely limiting, and so I gave examples of games that were actually much more substantial in games than some books around, and even focused on a case where the games spawned the books. Yes, you're right, the books came AFTER Gabe Knight, that was part of my point. And I must say I'm confused by you saying you don't think the books are as substantial as the game when you haven't tried them! Here's an advice - skip GK1, if you like, but you should give the book GK2 a go. Really.
The GAME Black Dahlia was based on a novel? Are you sure? I think it's an original story, inspired by the Black Dahlia case and the Cleveland Torso Murderer case - all real-life facts.
I haven't mis-read your point. More so, I questioned your examples. As Snarky said "I think it's pointless to compare the "substance" of a computer platform game
with that of two books". (I think you neglected the bold part).
Firstly, the issue of adaptation from one medium to another is related to this issue. Substance is related to adaptations, and after all this discussion started with comparisons between Alice the game and Alice the books.
Yes, there have been debates as to which are better: movies vs films vs games. However, what I'm trying to get across is that once you release original material, the adaptation into other formats reduces the perceived substance. For example, despite whether such-and-such book(or movie)-to-computer game is a great game, most rarely live up to the original book (or movies). There have been a few rare cases (one game springs to mind: Fate of Atlantis lives up to the substance of the film trilogy, and makes a worthy "fourth story" for the series).
However, having said this, it's also the same when original computer games are adapted for films. Look at Mario Brothers, Street Fighter, Double Dragon, and Tomb Raider. All have great substance as computer games, but as films they don't live up to the original in terms of substance.
This applies to your example of Gabe Knight. You can say you're "confused" to my declaration of GK novels not being as good as the game without reading them, but that proves my point -- I haven't read them, and I doubt a lot of people have read them compared to the amount of people who've played the game. When someone says "Gabriel Knight", does one think of the game or the book? Most likely (and this is just a guess), it's the game. Why? Because as good as the novel is, it doesn't live up to the original game. More people remember it as a game.
As for the Black Dahlia, while it wasn't a direct adaptation of Ellroy's novel, the novel was still used as part of the inspiration for the game (http://www.cdmag.com/articles/010/003/black_dahlia_preview.html). That's why I thought you mentioned this game. If not, then why add it? I mean, you say it's a game of substance. Great. But compared to what? You see, this whole issue began with the comparison between Alice as a book and Alice as a game adaptation. That's why issue of adaptation from one medium to another is related to this issue (or, in fact "the issue").
That's why I'm also confused with your addition of Grim Fandango, since there's nothing to compare it with in terms of substance (i.e. there's no Grim movie or Grim novel as far as I know).
You see, you do bring a valid point to Snarky's comment, but I'm merely just questioning your examples since it's a little hard to relate two of them to comparisons of substance between games and books (or rather as I see it, original source material [such as Alice in Wonderland or Gabriel Knight] compared toadaptations [like McGee's Alice or the GK novels]).
Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 12/07/2004 07:58:20
QuoteI think it's pointless to compare the "substance" of a computer platform game with that of two books. Of course the game is not going to be as substantial!
Let me put it this way: I don't think the game would have been any more substantial if it had stuck more closely to Lewis Carroll's vision.
I disagree. For example, I think LucasArts' Fate of Atlantis has as much substance as the Indy movies. And what about Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? Blade Runner too? Thus, I think it's fair to say you can make a computer game with as much substance as other media formats.
Right. I notice there's been a bit of debate about what I meant with my statement (though however people interpret me, they seem to be disagreeing with me!).
My argument, more carefully stated, is that the substance of a book or books cannot be captured in a computer platformer. Your counterexamples have two serious problems: a) They're not adaptations of books (HHGTTG started out as a radio play, and although BR the game takes elements from
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, it's mainly based on the movie), and b) they are not platform games.
If any computer games come close to providing the same kind of substance books do, it's those in the adventure game genre (as well as some games usually thought of as RPGs). Like books, they rely heavily on dialogue, characterization and exposition. Games that downplay those ingredients may be substantial as well, but in a very different way.
QuoteQuoteIf that description is broadly correct, I would say it's a remarkably thorough exploration of a multi-faceted idea, not a "one-joke" concept.
But I think if that's the case, the game is trying too hard at being "deep". A game like Hitman or Deus Ex does this sort of multi-faceted exploration so much better (especially Hitman from a psychological standpoint).
I'm afraid I don't follow. Isn't this a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't argument? Either it's too shallow or it's trying to be too deep?
QuoteI'm not disputing dark Alice at all. I just don't think it was done very well and explained why.
I think I must have missed that explanation; I can't see it anywhere in the thread.
QuoteMigs previously said it was a parody. I was responding to him. However, while it's true that it's not jokes that makes parody, it's the ridicule of certain elements that does make a parody. And McGee's Alice does ridicule, and as I've said I don't think it does it very well.
Could you give some examples of this ridicule?
:-\ It would appear that I was the one who had mis-read - yes, I sort of neglected the second half of the statement, and therefore took it into a different direction. I had been under the impression that the statement's message was, "no game can be as deep as the book/film/whatever it's based on", and assumed that meant "game's can't possibly be deep". Wrong assumption, I guess, since it seems that was never under discussion, and it brings all my points to near-irrelevance.
Why do I say near? Because there are exceptions, and although exceptions are famous for confirming the rule, they are always worth a mention. I maintain that your view on the Gabriel Knight books is a bit prejudiced - no one talks about them, no one mentions them, no one seems to have read them, ergo they're likely not as good as the game. Yes, it's another way to tell the story, but if you read GK2, you might be in for a surprise...
In these cases, it's all a matter of interpretation - adaptation always is. Really, when you think about it, an "adaptation" might even try to explore the original in a brand new way, one that never occurred to the original authors. SOme argue that spoils the entire experience (I do, for one); others say it's the best was to explore new points of view. Such is life.
Anyway, I could try and find the point I completely missed, but there's no need. My first two examples - Stephen King's The Mist and The Dark Eye - show that, if done right (Ah, but that's what's so often difficult), the games can live up to the stories perfectly.
ANd one last thing -
Quoteonce you release original material, the adaptation into other formats reduces the perceived substance.
Most times, yes, but not all the times. The films Dolores Claiborne and Mysery are an example of this, and Rosemary's Baby as well. Also, The Dark Eye allowed me to explore a whole new side of Poe's tales. And most times it's not in the adaptation - it's in what once can consider to be the original, i.e., which have you seen first. Most people stick to their first version of... of whatever, and so when the new thing in the new medium comes and explores other ways (sometimes nicely, sometimes outrageously) they almost automatically dislike it. It's not about what's the original story, but what's the original story FOR US.
Am I missing the point again? :-\ Please tell me if I am. I don't do my best thinking at 6:20Am...
:-\ It would appear that I was the one who had mis-read - yes, I sort of neglected the second half of the statement, and therefore took it into a different direction. I had been under the impression that the statement's message was, "no game can be as deep as the book/film/whatever it's based on", and assumed that meant "game's can't possibly be deep". Wrong assumption, I guess, since it seems that was never under discussion, and it brings all my points to near-irrelevance.
Why do I say near? Because there are exceptions, and although exceptions are famous for confirming the rule, they are always worth a mention. I maintain that your view on the Gabriel Knight books is a bit prejudiced - no one talks about them, no one mentions them, no one seems to have read them, ergo they're likely not as good as the game. Yes, it's another way to tell the story, but if you read GK2, you might be in for a surprise...
In these cases, it's all a matter of interpretation - adaptation always is. Really, when you think about it, an "adaptation" might even try to explore the original in a brand new way, one that never occurred to the original authors. SOme argue that spoils the entire experience (I do, for one); others say it's the best was to explore new points of view. Such is life.
Anyway, I could try and find the point I completely missed, but there's no need. My first two examples - Stephen King's The Mist and The Dark Eye - show that, if done right (Ah, but that's what's so often difficult), the games can live up to the stories perfectly.
ANd one last thing -
Quoteonce you release original material, the adaptation into other formats reduces the perceived substance.
Most times, yes, but not all the times. The films Dolores Claiborne and Mysery are an example of this, and Rosemary's Baby as well. Also, The Dark Eye allowed me to explore a whole new side of Poe's tales. And most times it's not in the adaptation - it's in what once can consider to be the original, i.e., which have you seen first. Most people stick to their first version of... of whatever, and so when the new thing in the new medium comes and explores other ways (sometimes nicely, sometimes outrageously) they almost automatically dislike it. It's not about what's the original story, but what's the original story FOR US.
Am I missing the point again? :-\ Please tell me if I am. I don't do my best thinking at 6:20Am...
Quote from: Snarky on Sat 17/07/2004 06:33:27
My argument, more carefully stated, is that the substance of a book or books cannot be captured in a computer platformer. Your counterexamples have two serious problems: a) They're not adaptations of books (HHGTTG started out as a radio play, and although BR the game takes elements from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, it's mainly based on the movie), and b) they are not platform games.
(a) is being a little picky, because they're still adaptations of better-known media forms. But I conceed with (b), I neglected the "platform" elements. (A lot of us have been mis-reading in this thread. Hehe)
As you further discuss, yes, adventure games and RPGs are more suited to such adaptations. However, that doesn't mean you can't have a platform game (or arcade, rather) that has more substance than a movie or book. A good example is Robocop 3. The film was dire, but the game conversion by Ocean was quite an extraordinary use of 3D graphics for its time and very playable.
QuoteI'm afraid I don't follow. Isn't this a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't argument? Either it's too shallow or it's trying to be too deep?
I'll elaborate. I think it tries too hard at presenting its multi-facetedness. There are other games out there that can do a better job without trying so hard. Where McGee's Alice is attempting this dark parody of Alice in Wonderland, it's still just a hack-and-slack action game. A game like Hitman or Deus Ex has extra elements compared to the standard action game, but they're a little more hidden (consider it a subtextual ideology, if you will). Whereas Alice is in-your-face, Hitmen and Deus Ex are more subtle in presenting psychological trauma or political discourse. It's not a case of "too shallow" or "too deep", but just "it tries too hard".
QuoteI think I must have missed that explanation; I can't see it anywhere in the thread.
Is this another example of mis-reading in this thread, or just ignorance? I've spent the last few posts in this thread explaining why. If you've missed my explanation, than perhaps you should re-read my posts very carefully. If you still are having trouble, perhaps a reading comprehension course might help. :)
QuoteCould you give some examples of this ridicule?
For example, the weapons that Alice uses are a parody of certain items or motifs in the game. I.e. a pack of cards, or the flamingo/croquet racket.
Also, the look of well-known characters are portrayed in a grotesque fashion that lampoons the original story.
But like I said, it's difficult to ascertain whether the game wants to be a parody or an in-your-face action game. That's one of the reasons I thought McGee's Alice wasn't done too well (this should also partially answer your previous question).
Redrum:
QuoteI maintain that your view on the Gabriel Knight books is a bit prejudiced - no one talks about them, no one mentions them, no one seems to have read them, ergo they're likely not as good as the game. Yes, it's another way to tell the story, but if you read GK2, you might be in for a surprise...
Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all debating the quality of the novels. I'm sure they're well-written and tell a decent story just as well as GK2. However, from the fact that hardly anyone talks about them (I didn't even know they existed until now) shows there's not a big demand for them. It's hard to trust something when you know so little about it. It's different to something like Myst, where the book adaptation is a littleÃ, more well-know (and in a lot of ways, as well-known as the game). I've read a lot of positive feedback about it and from what I hear the book has a lot of substance, perhaps more than the game (which isn't hard as the game is a little limited).
Having said all that, I am still a little bit prejudiced in my view of the GK2 book in a another way. You see, I wasn't as much a fan of GK2 as I was with GK1 or 3.
QuoteIn these cases, it's all a matter of interpretation - adaptation always is. Really, when you think about it, an "adaptation" might even try to explore the original in a brand new way, one that never occurred to the original authors. SOme argue that spoils the entire experience (I do, for one); others say it's the best was to explore new points of view. Such is life.
I agree. There was a Nic Cage movie called Adaptation that dealt with this very same principle. However, my view is I didn't think Alice was adapted very well, despite the noble exploration of ideas by the authors.
QuoteMost times, yes, but not all the times. The films Dolores Claiborne and Mysery are an example of this, and Rosemary's Baby as well. Also, The Dark Eye allowed me to explore a whole new side of Poe's tales. And most times it's not in the adaptation - it's in what once can consider to be the original, i.e., which have you seen first. Most people stick to their first version of... of whatever, and so when the new thing in the new medium comes and explores other ways (sometimes nicely, sometimes outrageously) they almost automatically dislike it. It's not about what's the original story, but what's the original story FOR US.
Yes, but like I said, it's rare that an adaptation surpasses an original. It happens, but it's rare.
However, I disagree with your view of "People stick to the first version of what they see". I saw the film LA Confidential before I read the book. The film was brilliantly done, but after I read the book I felt the book was miles better. Perhaps, this is more to do with the limitation of adapting an epic novel into a 2 hour film.
Likewise with games. I've played The Black Cauldron, and liked it, but I've never seen the Disney film or read the book. But I'm guessing the both film and book are better than the game. Call it a hunch.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 17/07/2004 10:29:04
(a) is being a little picky, because they're still adaptations of better-known media forms.
The reason I pointed it out is that I think (most) movies and (most) computer games are closer in spirit than (most) books and (most) computer games are. For instance, one could argue that the James Bond games (GoldenEye and whatnot) capture the substance of the movies, because the substance of both is to provide a certain kind of action and spy-tastic stylishness.
QuoteAs you further discuss, yes, adventure games and RPGs are more suited to such adaptations. However, that doesn't mean you can't have a platform game (or arcade, rather) that has more substance than a movie or book. A good example is Robocop 3. The film was dire, but the game conversion by Ocean was quite an extraordinary use of 3D graphics for its time and very playable.
Right. But that's not a matter of capturing the substance of the original, but rather of creating an entirely original substance of its own. Just take an example like Dune II, which fails completely (because it doesn't even try) at capturing the substance of the book, but is a very substantial game on its own terms.
QuoteI'll elaborate. I think it tries too hard at presenting its multi-facetedness. There are other games out there that can do a better job without trying so hard. Where McGee's Alice is attempting this dark parody of Alice in Wonderland, it's still just a hack-and-slack action game. A game like Hitman or Deus Ex has extra elements compared to the standard action game, but they're a little more hidden (consider it a subtextual ideology, if you will). Whereas Alice is in-your-face, Hitmen and Deus Ex are more subtle in presenting psychological trauma or political discourse. It's not a case of "too shallow" or "too deep", but just "it tries too hard".
OK.
QuoteQuoteI think I must have missed that explanation; I can't see it anywhere in the thread.
Is this another example of mis-reading in this thread, or just ignorance? I've spent the last few posts in this thread explaining why. If you've missed my explanation, than perhaps you should re-read my posts very carefully. If you still are having trouble, perhaps a reading comprehension course might help. :)
Don't much care for your tone there, mate. It's more likely a matter of us having a different idea of what I'm asking you to explain. I've seen you argue why the game doesn't work as a parody of Alice, but not (at least until the paragraph above) why it doesn't work as a dark reimagining of Alice.
QuoteQuoteCould you give some examples of this ridicule?
For example, the weapons that Alice uses are a parody of certain items or motifs in the game. I.e. a pack of cards, or the flamingo/croquet racket.
I wouldn't think of that as a parody, but as an Alice-themed arsenal.
QuoteAlso, the look of well-known characters are portrayed in a grotesque fashion that lampoons the original story.
But portraying the characters from the original in a grotesque fashion is what making a dark version is all about. Again, I don't see that this makes it a parody.
QuoteBut like I said, it's difficult to ascertain whether the game wants to be a parody or an in-your-face action game. That's one of the reasons I thought McGee's Alice wasn't done too well (this should also partially answer your previous question).
Why can't it be both?
QuoteLikewise with games. I've played The Black Cauldron, and liked it, but I've never seen the Disney film or read the book. But I'm guessing the both film and book are better than the game. Call it a hunch.
I can vouch for the books, at least.
Quote from: Snarky on Sat 17/07/2004 16:40:01
Right. But that's not a matter of capturing the substance of the original, but rather of creating an entirely original substance of its own. Just take an example like Dune II, which fails completely (because it doesn't even try) at capturing the substance of the book, but is a very substantial game on its own terms.
But I wouldn't classify McGee's Alice as innovative as Dune II. McGee's Alice was a run-of-the-mill actioner (granted, a very playable run-of-the-mill action) whereas Dune II changed the way strategy games were played. Before Dune II, most strategy games were turn based affairs and a lot of them used that hex-map feature. Dune II made them more exciting. And it also paved the way for games like Command and Conquer and Warcraft.
QuoteDon't much care for your tone there, mate. It's more likely a matter of us having a different idea of what I'm asking you to explain. I've seen you argue why the game doesn't work as a parody of Alice, but not (at least until the paragraph above) why it doesn't work as a dark reimagining of Alice.
Settle, matey. My tone t'was nothing more than a joke. My point was you don't have to ask me to explain why a "dark Alice" doesn't work because I already have in my previous posts. Not only that, Capt Mostly explained reasons too. Have a re-read of the thread. Maybe it'll make more sense now in hindsight.
QuoteI wouldn't think of that as a parody, but as an Alice-themed arsenal.
But portraying the characters from the original in a grotesque fashion is what making a dark version is all about. Again, I don't see that this makes it a parody.
Why can't it be both?
I should state first that my comments regarding parody were in reference to a previous poster who brought up the idea that the game was a parody, so I'm following his train of thought here. But I do conceed that the game contains elements of parody and I think my examples justify this. They are motifs to create a mock-up of the original book.
And sure, it can be both, but what I am saying is it doesn't work well as both. It creates an uneven tone. As I said before, you've need to have a good sense of writing in order to achieve merged genres. And, in my opinion, McGee's Alice didn't pull it off to well.
To use some of my previous examples, Hitman has a serious tone -- no question about that, and it succeeds. Meanwhile, Grand Theft Auto 3 has a very black-comedic and farcical tone -- after all, it's a satire on urban society (and the violence within), and it too succeeds.
But Alice? Is it a pumped-up actioner? A parody? A psychological drama? You see, it's trying to be too many things at once, and in the end you can't really accept it as any of those things because it's too muddled. In other words, the themes of one tone are conflicting with the themes of another tone.
As a game, it's a decent diversion. But I don't rate it highly as I do for other games. As I say it lacks substance, and I think that partially has to do with the fact it was an adaptation (some prefer the term "re-interpretation") of a classic book -- trying to make something as memorable as the original Alice in Wonderland is a difficult (but ambitious) goal. And I think this adaptation/re-interpretation leads to problems as to what it actually is in temrs of genre, which muddled it. Plus, I felt it tried to be too "in your face", whereas games like Hitman or Deus Ex can be very subtle and clever about things.
Perhaps this is just my game snobbery shining through, but I do look at certain games as "higher" forms of entertainment. I believe games can make very personal statements and make people feel emotions similar to watching a movie, especially in the games I've mentioned throughout this post. In other words, there's a subsurface level that I enjoy certain games.
But I just didn't feel that way with McGee's Alice.
I don't want to trash the game, because in honesty it's a better game than a lot of the crap that's out there. But that's just how I see it: as a game. Nothing more.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 17/07/2004 18:58:47
But I wouldn't classify McGee's Alice as innovative as Dune II. McGee's Alice was a run-of-the-mill actioner (granted, a very playable run-of-the-mill action) whereas Dune II changed the way strategy games were played. Before Dune II, most strategy games were turn based affairs and a lot of them used that hex-map feature. Dune II made them more exciting. And it also paved the way for games like Command and Conquer and Warcraft.
I wouldn't call Alice as innovative as Dune II either. I was just using it as an example to demonstrate that how substantial a computer game is doesn't depend on how well it captures the substance of the original.
Which was intended to support my original argument that American McGee's Alice wouldn't have been any more substantial by hewing closer to the original in tone.
QuoteSettle, matey. My tone t'was nothing more than a joke.
Heh. Good one. :)
QuoteMy point was you don't have to ask me to explain why a "dark Alice" doesn't work because I already have in my previous posts. Not only that, Capt Mostly explained reasons too. Have a re-read of the thread. Maybe it'll make more sense now in hindsight.
I did, and -- honest truth -- the only thing that resembled an argument addressing this issue was your statement that the action, psycho-thriller and parody elements worked against each other. As for Capt Mostly, I thought we had already dispensed with his argument that McGee didn't "get" the Alice stories. It's probably time to let this point go, though.
Quote from: Snarky on Sat 17/07/2004 23:52:17
I wouldn't call Alice as innovative as Dune II either. I was just using it as an example to demonstrate that how substantial a computer game is doesn't depend on how well it captures the substance of the original.
Which was intended to support my original argument that American McGee's Alice wouldn't have been any more substantial by hewing closer to the original in tone.
But like I said, that's very rare.
QuoteI did, and -- honest truth -- the only thing that resembled an argument addressing this issue was your statement that the action, psycho-thriller and parody elements worked against each other. As for Capt Mostly, I thought we had already dispensed with his argument that McGee didn't "get" the Alice stories. It's probably time to let this point go, though.
I don't think any one dispensed his argument. I still think it appears valid, and I've backed-up with reasons why (see my "12 Angry Men" example).
Let me put it this way: Would 'To Kill A Mockingbird" make a good action platformer if it was set in the future, and Atticus was some kind of Judge Dredd-like character armed with a shotgun ready to defend Tom Robinson against Alabama redneck robots? Or would Hemmingway's 'A Farewell to Arms' make a good war game ala 'Call of Duty'? Or even make Virginia Woolf's 'Mrs Dalloway' into a game (which I'm sure is possible, if difficult)?
In answer, possibly -- you could make a good platofrmer out of each. But it's also a little like raping the corpses of Harper Lee, Hemmingway, and Woolf. And like I said, it's very rare you get a game that capturesthe same amont of substance as the original.
It is somewhat more likely to come out substatial as a Adventure game than a platformer or a FPS, IMO.
Funny you should mention that:
http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?name=Wonderland
And:
http://xtcabandonware.com/gameinfo.php?id=Alice
And for C64 lovers who like colossally awesome games:
http://www.c64unlimited.net/games/a/alice_in%20wonderland/alice_in_wonderland.htm
Alright, now I may have missed some points in the numerous posts above, but here are my thoughts on Alice:
If you were a young girl who spent her life in a storybook land, absorbed in the pages, it would definately be something you related your childhood with. The Alice in the games loved those stories as a kid it seems. Then a fire broke out in her house and everyone in her family except Alice died. If this happens to a young kid, of course they would withdraw into their own world.
The point of the game, I feel, is that Alice (now older) is trying to regain her sanity. Her mind is symbolized by the Wonderland she had such a connection to as a child. Because of the twisted shape of her mind, the shape of Wonderland and its residents have changed, so she must battle her way through to control her own mind.
When I look at it this way, I think it's really cool. It's not really a sequel, in my opnion, but rather a stand-alone game inspired by the story.
My two cents:
I've played the game up to the level after the Dutchess. I'd say it's a game inspired by Lewis Carroll's "Alice" - not a parody. It's just based on an idea, not an attempt to create "Alice in Wonderland" in game form. I think the game does ok in its main focus, the production. Unfortunately, they didn't do much with the idea behind the game... but maybe you can't expect much more than a shooter from a game based on the Quake 3 engine ;).
So I'd say that American McGee's Alice:
1. Creates a dark world inspired by Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland".
2. Is well designed visually (and very Burtonesque).
3. Does not offer much more than a typical shooter, but is not a bad game and worth a look for the production values.
I think some people are falling short of the essence of what a game is supposed to be, as far as originality - I'm sure almost everyone would of liked to imagine a 'dark wonderland', a kind of faery tale which allows for surrealist and possible scary interpretations if imagined. I'm not going to hold it against American McGee for being the first one to realise the 'dark' adaptation (I personally when I was 10 or 11 did sketches of the Wonderland world with a bit horror theme to them). I think talking about the 'shallow' or 'deepness' of games is going offtopic, if Alice was kept to the original victorian tale as a videogame it would have been a rather unsuccessful game.
Call wonderland a metaphor. The subtext, however cliche it may sound (almost every horror game features an asylum) provides an open platform to visually pervert and distort the classic, there is a philosophical backdrop to the Alice In Wonderland story anyway - rife with psychedelic, illogical and absurdist imagery but not without the rationality, innocence and beauty of the Wonderland. I don't think there is anything wrong to adapting classic if done well, I believe McGee's Alice is visually impressive with average gameplay (for the time) - None the less, I'd say Myst failed pretty miserably in terms of gameplay (even spawning the parody of Pyst) but people loved it because it was an immersive interactive novel of a sort. Wonderland is a world where anything can happen (like Wizard of Oz) and it seems to be very easy to dement metaphors to your own ends. For instance, Venetian Snares has controversial lolita cd-covers(may offend click at own risk) which in some twisted way can be described as art http://www.last.fm/music/Venetian+Snares/+albums. Some times with horror it can be used as a device to twist the seemingly innocent (think carnivals and clowns).
I'm not a fan of Tim Burton really, even though people love his style and artistic license. Maybe I would of liked him if he was relatively underground and not in the mainstream, because by the time it hits kids who think its all the more 'cool' to have Jack Skellington backpacks and badges I begin to think of it on verging on cliche and unoriginal. I think when you look back and get older, it's very easy to dismiss 'newer' things. For example, Indie used to be what it was 'independent' music which didn't really receive any airplay and was popular among university kids who liked to appreciate the break from the bombardment of mainstream music. Now alot of Indie is repetitive, under-produced, lacking any depth, meaningless lyrics and bordering on a cliche created by a subculture which took over.
It's like what happened to the Goth scene, which was quite romantic in mentality and celebrated individuality and artistry with real goth bands like Bauhaus, Kate Moss or Skinny Puppy (just a few). Hell, not even the 'goth' kids back in the day where going around dressed like Mansonites who shop at Hot Topic, it seems that once a fringe group of people gets recognition a fad develops from it. And sorry to go offtopic but this is really on-topic - It's very easy to criticise something for being 'to in your face' and not 'subtle'. For some older and more laidback individuals they can appreciate immersion without the visual metaphors and on dialogue and plot alone, but for other types of people - the philosophy (a painting says more then a thousand words) rings true. It just depends on your preference. Sure, it would of been nice for a 'dark wonderland' to be less 'in your face' with maybe an absinthe-drinking Mad Hatter speaking in Nietzschean-riddle-tongue (oh I wonder what Thus Spake Zaruthustra would be like if it was a videogame!). After all, alot of German Faerie Tales were originally very gruesome but due to christian-influence became much toned with word of mouth (some tales have pagan origin)
Sorry to revive the thread from the grave, I'm just quite fascinated when I heard Alice was going to become a movie in 2007 with Sarah Michelle Geller playing. Will it be quite pyschologically terrorfying or would it be another 'teenage-goth-cliche'? The jury is still out.
Quote from: raddicks on Mon 01/01/2007 15:38:20
I'm sure almost everyone would of liked to imagine a 'dark wonderland', a kind of faery tale which allows for surrealist and possible scary interpretations if imagined. I'm not going to hold it against American McGee for being the first one to realise the 'dark' adaptation (I personally when I was 10 or 11 did sketches of the Wonderland world with a bit horror theme to them).
1. He wasn't the first. Far from it, as Kinoko points out.
2. "Would
have", god dammit!
I like the game, and I'm currently replaying it due to being reminded by this topic.
Not viewed through innocent eyes though, I find the writing severely lacking, the game extremely linear, and the gameplay fairly uninteresting. It's still a good game considering when it was published (2000 if I'm not mistaken, too lazy to check), but it doesn't really add much to Alice in Wonderland. Though I dig the messed up Cheshire cat.
Quote from: voh on Wed 03/01/2007 10:35:03
I like the game, and I'm currently replaying it due to being reminded by this topic.
Not viewed through innocent eyes though, I find the writing severely lacking, the game extremely linear, and the gameplay fairly uninteresting. It's still a good game considering when it was published (2000 if I'm not mistaken, too lazy to check), but it doesn't really add much to Alice in Wonderland. Though I dig the messed up Cheshire cat.
Totally agree with the linear play and not-so-brilliant gameplay,
I don't mind the fact its a bit linear, because if it was open ended, well... I would be spending about 5 times more time on the game to find out every 'nook and cranny'. It's my problem, like I will play final fantasy or Fallout and I will get stressed if I miss any NPC dialogue or easter eggs or item places etc. I just remember levels like 'Machinations' and some of the 'funhouse' style levels and it seems to be missing from most games. Banjo Kazooie strikes me as a game with a fun world.