Poor Alice. Years pass and the pain of tragedy diminishes with time, but neither shame nor guilt nor madness ever leave us. And for Alice Liddell, once-bold Wonderland explorer, madness has returned with a vengeance.
American McGee’s Alice was under-appreciated; I appreciated it – at length, and reprise that appreciation with an expanded version of the same article for the upcoming Well Played 3.0 – but most people didn’t get it. Too many jumping puzzles, too difficult, too long, too packed with disturbing imagery deemed unsuitable for the world of Wonderland. The game sold okay but didn’t do well critically, and it took eleven years for EA to allow a sequel. Still led by American McGee, that Terry Gilliam of video games, Alice: Madness Returns is upon us.
McGee has not had a great career since Alice. The do-no-wrong wunderkind whose dark visions permeated DOOM and Quake, whose original Alice was meant to be a blockbuster to end all blockbusters, has since gone from mediocrity to disaster to mediocrity in the form of Scrapland, Bad Day L.A., and Grimm. The kindest thing anyone can say about any of those games is that they… they existed. His latest company, Shanghai-based Spicy Horse, held the developmental reins for Madness Returns.
The Alice games are platformers first and foremost, so I went with the PS3 version. I prefer that controller to the 360’s, and though I’ll normally go with the PC as my first choice, it didn’t appear on Steam until this morning, so console it was.
Eleven years have passed in the game world as well, meaning Alice is around twenty-five. She’s been out of the asylum for some time now, but has been unable to let go of her childhood, shattered by a raging fire that destroyed her family’s home and killed everyone in the Liddell clan except for her. That event left the young teen catatonic, trapped in her own mind, a Wonderland gone horribly wrong. In the original game, Alice fought to heal herself and reconcile the realities of adulthood, sexual maturation, loss of fairy-tale innocence, and the pun-intended burning sense of guilt she feels for having failed to rescue or even warn her family about the blaze. That she set. Maybe.
She’s gotten herself a job keeping house at an orphanage for mentally ill children. Along with room, board, and salary, this position allows her access to Dr. Bumby, a psychiatrist who employs hypnotism as a therapeutic device. Bumby’s approach to behavioral therapy and trauma reconciliation would horrify any modern practitioner: he believes that memory is, on the whole, bad; and bad memories, like ones in which your entire family die in a fire, should be repressed or eliminated from the psyche, by force if necessary.
That a creepy psychiatrist who forces his patients to forget unpleasant experiences has unfettered access to children – children he renders helpless through hypnotism, no less – doesn’t need to be explicitly discussed, and it isn’t. Alice too is in his clutches, and perhaps unremarkably, she’s suffered a relapse in the last few months and is once again losing her grip on reality. Before you can even chase a rabbit down a hole (actually her stuffed rabbit has been kidnapped by an evil nurse), Alice is back in Wonderland, where allies and enemies alike destroyed in her previous adventure through the id are back, and scary, and mean.
Almost-but-not-quite Patrick Stewart-sounding Roger Jackson reprises his Cheshire Cat (Susie Brann returns also in the title role), but this time he seems a little pissed at Alice. “Making friends, Alice?” he snarls. “You’re as randomly lethal and entirely confused as you ever were.” The girl herself seems more bemused than frightened as she wanders through her mind, collecting repressed memories of her childhood and battling disturbing reincarnations of Lewis Carroll’s fiction. I suspect her mood will change as she uncovers secrets long suggested but never confirmed – from what Bumby really does behind his office’s closed door to the truth behind the fire that killed her family.
Alice is an adult now, not a tweenager, so she thinks she’s in control. But she’s not, and if Madness Returns teaches us anything, it’s that she never will be, the poor thing. There are some illnesses that just don’t get better. This time, though, she’s not completely off her rocker, and her experiences in Wonderland are broken up by short jaunts back to reality, during which she explores 19th-Century London, a place that’s easily as unpleasant as what’s going on in her mind. Within minutes of starting the game a pimp suggests that she’d do better, money-wise, as a whore than as a housekeeper for crazy kids. Alice: Madness Returns is not a game for children and some of the things you see and hear won’t make adults very comfortable either.
Tighter platforming, a friendlier difficulty curve, delightful new weapons and more creepy visuals than you can shake a stick at have – so far – given me reason to believe that American McGee has done it again, despite a decade of shit work on his part. Maybe he’s just made to do Alice games. And while the whole thing could collapse around me, so far I like what I’m seeing.
I switched from Normal to Hard pretty early in, and I’ll say that it makes for a much more challenging game. Whether this is due to controls that are ever so slightly less responsive than I’d like, or actual increased challenge, I’m not sure. But if you have any skill at all with combat platformers, and you wish to actually have to try to succeed in the game, I’d recommend going with Hard. Fortunately you can switch difficulties any time, though the game makes quite a scene when you do, warning that it’ll mess up trophy advancement and then being quite obstreperous about actually letting you hit the “I know, let me change difficulties anyway” button.
Its outstanding Unreal 3-powered graphics do justice to McGee’s vision, though you’ll see a lot of the technical issues that have plagued Spicy Horse games in the past: tearing, collision, disappearing textures, that sort of thing. They also couldn’t be bothered to mocap or animate some moves that you do all the time, like 180-degree turns, so get used to detail shortcomings. But the Alice milieu has definitely returned, with classic American McGee horribleness on full display – the currency of Wonderland is teeth, the snicker-snack Vorpal Blade is a gore-spattered kitchen knife, the characters are… well, they’re all mad here.
Reviews have, so far, been pretty middle of the road, in the five to seven range. And don’t expect anything innovative here from a gameplay perspective: Madness Returns is part Alice (but not as original), part Psychonauts (but not as ingenious), and not much new or different. For a lot of gamers I think this is one they’ll prefer to grab at a Steam sale, and it’s another game I think the publisher would have done well to release as a budget title. Oh sure, it’s a full length game – 12-25 hours by all accounts – and it sports production values that are really good, if somewhat slapdash from time to time. From that perspective the $49.99 price tag is suitable. But bearing in mind that it’s a sequel to a game many bought but few understood, and one that doesn’t actually do anything that hasn’t already been done, and I’d posit the sales would have been better at $19.99 out of the gate.
I like it, though; enough to give it my guarded endorsement after four or five hours of play. There is plenty that smacks of carelessness but nothing which seems particularly irritating. Bad Day L.A. was simply broken; Scrapland and Grimm were just pointless; Alice: Madness Returns is an actual honest-to-god game, though admittedly not one that’ll resonate with all players.
It’s a little sexy, a lot creepy, a whole lot unsettling. It’s a nightmare made interactive, like its predecessor, and also like its predecessor it’s a story of secrets and loathing and a young woman who’s just simply beyond help. That it’s nothing mechanically special doesn’t detract from the feeling that Madness Returns is a visual and narrative triumph solid outing. I hope it does well, because though reviews have pounced for its overall mediocrity, a lot of much more mediocre (and much less imaginative) games do a lot better and don’t endure the same critical lashing.
Send an email to the author of this post at steerpike@tap-repeatedly.com.
Of my gaming friends, I’m the only one I know who actually played and enjoyed Alice.
This is a sequel I believed would never happen, sort of like Beyond Good & Evil 2, but I’m glad to see that it did.
I’ve never given a shit about anything with McGee’s name on it that wasn’t called Quake or Alice, who has? And so here I plan to have a third McGee, once the new madness falls into bargain territory, where you rightly posit it should already be.
The conglomerate impression I’m getting is that this is just like the first game; somewhere between bland, frustrating and amusing, a simplistic combat/platformer with a fantastic art style and atmosphere to make up for the chore of playing it?
@Jakkar: I’ll give you that. The story and feeling of the game is fantastically dark and I love it. And for me at least it makes up for the things that frustrate me – a sometimes awkward camera and sometimes clunky controls.
Agreed, S.Christian, and welcome to the site. : )
As you say, camera and controls are not perfect; you do experience some graphical slapdashery, and sure, the game is a straight up combat platformer. I prefer to see the Alice games as innovating in the way they present their visuals, and the interior of her mind, rather than in gameplay. I spent quite a few more hours with it last night and am still feeling very positive.
I liked the first game, despite it being a bit too hard. The thing is, I’m really not the same person I was 11 years ago, and I don’t know how much a newer version of the old game will appeal to me. Maybe during the xmas Steam sale though..
Good to hear your thoughts on this, Matt. The reviews have been very “Meh”, but something in the back of my mind kept telling me that perhaps the reviews were missing something.. maybe concentrating too much on conventional mechanics rather than getting the bigger picture?
Christ, I sound like Randy Pitchford..
As middling as some of the reviews have been, I’m still intrigued by Madness Returns. I never played the original Alice (although it’s bundled with the new game, I hear?) but I’m something of a fan of Alice in Wonderland, to the point where the story ran as a slight theme at my wedding. Visually Madness Returns looks right up my street. It looks like the dark and twisted Wonderland that Tim Burton’s disappointingly never was in last years movie, and part of me thinks I’ll enjoy that even if the gameplay isn’t particularly forward thinking or innovative..
The simple flaw with the reviews (from our perspectives?) is that they’re tackling A:MR as a game. Which isn’t unfair in the slightest, but for those of us with longer memories there’s the awareness that the original Alice was not a noteworthy game in the slightest.
It was an interactive artwork. A series of beautiful 3d sculptures backed by music, threaded with dialogue, and browsed by the means of exceedingly frustrating combat and platforming sequences.
That’s a point…
Steerpike! You’ve been remiss! You didn’t give any impressions on the music! D:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPFc2FvXcmU <3
“American McGee, that Terry Gilliam of video games” Them’s fighting words. Interesting (read: wrong but worth examining) analogy though.
Hey man, I love Terry Gilliam. I think Terry Gilliam is a genius. I don’t mean that as an insult, I mean it as, like, two dudes who see things that I frankly wouldn’t want to see all the time (but I’d pay to see in short bursts).
Whereas Terry Gilliam’s films are always beautiful but he seems to constantly struggle with the practicalities of filmmaking as a business, American McGee manages his teams and budgets well but his games aren’t always there. I think the comparison is apt!
Jakkar: you’re right, I skipped mention of the music. It’s really quite good in my opinion, particularly the weird violin title theme. Good stuff.
This seems like a super trendy pick right now. I know a handful of people who are really reveling in the fact that it’s “not for everyone” and proudly spouting that every chance they get.
I’m interested but I don’t know if it’s all already gone all niche, fanboyish and that I should be repelled. Hell, I think it did with the original 11 years ago.
It’s largely the budgets and practicalities where I thought the comparison failed. Up until the last two train smashes (two films in a row with lead dieing is rough going) Gilliam always got his films done on time and on or under budget. While some were certainly better than others all of them were worth watching.
McGee’s failed on both counts.
It is an interesting comparison though; the both work personal veins of warped mythology (Clive Barker did the same) and the idea could be extended to how games and movies work differently. Alice may’ve been a great movie but it was a borderline terrible game. Time Bandits the Game would almost certainly have sucked in the same ways Alice did.
McGee seems stuck between level designer and evocative dreamer sharing with us and there’s been poop trying to bridge that gap *making games*.
Trivia: the (for me) most memorable moment in Time Bandits–the skull hurled through the invisible wall, shattering it–was a last moment addition because there wasn’t enough budget remaining for the intended scripted sequence.
Gosh. Now I’ve got to try and play Alice for the zillionth time and most definitely watch Time Bandits for the umpteenth.
“I don’t exactly remember. Something about free will.”
Having recently watched Lost in La Mancha, I’ve been forced to correct my long-held misapprehension about Terry Gilliam. His reputation is that of someone who can’t handle a budget, but the truth is he’s only ever gone over budget once – on The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. And that one wasn’t really his fault, at least not entirely. He’s a much more responsible filmmaker than his wrongly-applied reputation would indicate.
Anyway, I don’t believe McGee went over budget or past schedule on either Alice game; he was brought in at the end of Scrapland when Trevor Chan decided he needed a bigger name on it; as for Bad Day LA, it should never have been released. But McGee in general, and Spicy Horse as a whole, is a pretty cheap option as developers go. He takes advantage of the lower cost of labor in China.
Still, I agree that he’s much more a visionary level designer than an overall game creator. I’d much prefer McGee as a game’s Creative Director than Lead Designer. Both Alice and Madness Returns, while good, become pretty plodding at the midpoint. There are only so many very similar platforming puzzles you want to do, and the RPS review of Madness Returns (that it’s visually brilliant but eventually becomes a chore due to mechanical sameness) is accurate.
I certainly wouldn’t say McGee is a failure as a game developer, not by any means. Rather, I’d say he’s not ideal as a studio head or production lead. His vision really deserves exposure, but maybe someone else should make the gameplay.
Sounds about right Steer.
I retract my statement about McGee going over budget; perhaps he simply had a near infinite budget for the original Alice coming off the id mad cash.
Scrapland had a solid core but confused (and boring) execution. It could’ve been polished by another dev into something special or triaged for cordwood. No fault of McGee. As you say he was the slapped on Executive Producer guy.
Without going into indepth analysis of directorial/developmental histories, I can’t see the comparison.
McGee is an artist who has always made bad games with intriguing plots/settings/art styles. Once upon a time, he even made a semi-decent game with a fantastic art style. That was ten years ago.
Gilliam on the other hand really does direct good films. Many of them can be hard to stomach when they pile on the surreality without ever giving much meat, but he stands as man worthy of respect. His long filmography shows a man who is, ultimately, successful in his chosen field, who has entertained millions.
McGee can only really claim that he has been involved in varying degrees with perhaps three titles anyone was aware of in the last decade, the best of which was roundly regarded as ‘bland, empty, pointless, a bit of a waste’, and the other two were almost universally deemed completely broken and agonisingly boring. As an artist, he has potential. He just hasn’t shown that for a very long time. As a lead game designer, he hasn’t got a clue.
His games are regarded ‘un-fun’. That separates him from Gilliam by a thousand long, figurative miles.
Thou shalt not disparage my brilliant comparison!
Both American expatriates? Check.
Both have nightmarishly dark visions? Check.
Both create work with far from universal appeal? Check.
Both judged (wrongly) for being untrustworthy with budgets? Check.
Both worked with people named “John?” Check.
THEY ARE PRACTICALLY THE SAME MAN THOSE WHO DISPUTE ME WILL SUFFER MY ENDLESS WRATH
I have been to Canada and lived in Arizona.
I am nightmarishly dark and see odd things.
I create work with far from any appeal.
I am correctly judged for being untrustworth with budgets.
I have worked with multiple people named John.
I am 83.43% McGilliam. If forced to breed I shall have ugly babies with feckless little stump hands on noodle arms.
My take on Alice (the first one)/Psychonauts. I totally see the connection. Each game’s art direction is similar in that it’s original and true to the tone of the game.
However, now that I’m playing Alice, I have to say I liked Psychonauts better. This is because Raz is a likeable character. He has his own personality, and it’s an endearing one. Whereas Alice seems far more like a cypher, a stand-in for the player who seems to figure out things before I do and who doesn’t explain herself.
Sure, games are filled with cyphers. FPS games use (usually gloved) hands and parts of a gun. But in a game that’s supposed to be about story (yeah I have the original version with the book), the main character needs to be a character. And we need to care about the character.
It could be that Alice seems so empty because the voice-acting is just…not a good fit. Her voice actually maybe is okay, though it certainly doesn’t sound like the voice of an adolescent. But the other voices in the game are far too silky-smooth and don’t sound ANYTHING like the characters who use them. The cheshire cat–I can’t even begin to describe what a poor fit his voice is.
Most of the characters sound like they’d be more comfortable selling shoes in a seedy lounge on Sunset Blvd than playing this odd assortment of weird characters (truly one of the oddest assortments in the entirety of English literature).
The game is marvelously inventive, though.
And I haven’t finished it yet. So my opinion will change. However based on SP’s discussion about it, I have some idea of what to expect–and it doesn’t sound as though my chief complaints will budge even an inch.
One other thing: the voices in Psychonauts are simply outstanding. Every single character sounds exactly like you’d expect him/her to. Even down to the exploding babies in Sasha Nine’s head! So voice-acting matters. I would say that, yeah, sure, Psychonauts came later and maybe lessons were learned. Except bad voice-acting has been around for YEARS in forgettable games, stretching back to the days when games used FMV and no-name actors to ruin what had been at least reasonably sized budgets way back in the early 90s. So that’s no excuse.
I quite enjoyed Scrapland – have I been playing it wrong? Why the lack of love?
I think they will make a new one again because in the ending chesire says “Wonderland is safe for now”