Interesting Action/Adventure I am playing - American McGee's Alice

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

DG, I think you mis-read me - I gave examples of original games with substance, because of the sentence which read

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!

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.

[DGMacphee]

DG, I think you mis-read me - I gave examples of original games with substance, because of the sentence which read

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!

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]).

[Snarky]

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.

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.

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.

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?

I'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.

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.

Could you give some examples of this ridicule?

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

  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 -

once 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...

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

  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 -

once 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...

[DGMacphee]

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.

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?

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".

I 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.

Could 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:

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Snarky]

(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.

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.

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.

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".

OK.

I 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.

Could 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.

Also, 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.

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).

Why can't it be both?

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.

I can vouch for the books, at least.

[DGMacphee]

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.

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.

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.

I 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.

[Snarky]

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.

Settle, matey. My tone t'was nothing more than a joke.

Heh. Good one. 

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.

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.

[DGMacphee]

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.

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.

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.

[Hollister Man]

It is somewhat more likely to come out substatial as a Adventure game than a platformer or a FPS, IMO.

[DGMacphee]

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

[Sutebi]

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.

[lightman]

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.

[raddicks]

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.

[Snarky]

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!

[voh]

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.

[raddicks]

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.