Alan Wakes Up A Rich Man

'We're rich, Alan! Rich as Croesus! Now we don't need to eat dogs anymore.'

Alan Wake might not be an unqualified success as far as survival horror games about narcissistic fiction authors go, but it’s a well-intentioned affair that very much did the technical legwork for its recently uncancelled PC version. And it’s paid off for Finnish developers Remedy, who report that Alan Wake PC was profitable within 48 hours of release.

PC! Profit! Do you hear that, publishers?

Offered Remedy’s Aki Järvilehto on their forums, “We are very happy with the sales and hitting #1 on Steam at launch was nothing short of amazing. We recouped our development and marketing expenses during the first 48 hours. And yes, we’re certainly very excited about PC.”

While any reading of this depends somewhat on how much additional expense and manhours was necessary to convert an existent game to PC, it’s clearly still SUPERHAPPYFUNNEWS. And hopefully will change Remedy’s latter-day ‘oh, er, not sure’ stance on PC into a full-on ‘ooooh, baby.’

Alan Wake’s American Nightmare to head this way too, then? This standalone, more action-heavy side-game is garnering respectable reviews from the console folk so far, though is apparently less ambitious than its parent game.


  1. marcusfell says:

    When will more devs wake up and see the light?

    • Kollega says:

      I’m afraid that too many of them are scared by the shadowy horrors of PC piracy.

    • Sarlix says:

      Did anyone read the interview with the Alan Wake dev/s about piracy? They were all like ‘sure we don’t care if people download it illegally, we just want people to enjoy it. Some will pay, some won’t. It’s all gravy’

      A more accurate account can be found here: link to

    • Prokroustis says:

      Alas, I don’t think there is a remedy for that..

    • Sunjumper says:

      The answer is easy. They look at how much money games make on the PC and then, because it is a nest of villany and scum they extrapolate how much was lost to piracy.
      Thus once they know the numbers they can sleep peacefully realising which massive amounts of money they did not lose by not releasing it on the PC.

    • Kreeth says:

      There’s definitely a chance to shine if they just decide to approach the platform with a bit of flare.

    • Valvarexart says:

      Yeah, I heard that over 5 million copies of The Witcher 2 were pirated. Seeing as the game sold about 4 million copies, that means that in total CDPR lost one million copies worth of money. And that’s not counting the development costs.

    • alseT says:


      Where did you get the first numbers, because they sound fantastic. 55% piracy rate is a lot better than the 80% from 2D BOY.

      As for your second numbers I’m guessing you just made them up. 25% of pirates being lost sales is a pipe dream. Go for 0.1% and you might be closer to the truth.

    • Jorum says:

      Um that doesn’t make any sense. If indeed five million copies were pirated, then they “lost” five million copies worth of money, not one million.

      Except of course they didn’t “lose” the money from non-sales they just didn’t get it.
      So if four million sales is enough to turn a profit it was worth the trouble.
      Obviously they’d also like the other five million sales*, but that doesn’t affect whether PC release was profitable.

      Publishers are becoming insane – so worried about the idea of not making all the money possible that they’d rather not make any at all.

      *it’s unlikely those 5 million pirated would all be converted into sales. quite a few just probably wouldn’t bother and skip it rather than pay (or wait for inevitable 70% discount).

    • woodsey says:

      “As for your second numbers I’m guessing you just made them up. 25% of pirates being lost sales is a pipe dream. Go for 0.1% and you might be closer to the truth.”

      *spits out tea*

      You think only 0.1% of pirated copies are people who are just selfish little dicks and don’t want to pay their pay?

    • alseT says:


      Hyperbole aside, yes I do think 1/1000 is the number for people who would have bought the game were piracy not an option. It was an approximation made some time ago and I can’t remember the source of it but it stayed with me.

      If that were not the case Ubisoft would have yelled it form the top of their lungs that their DRM for Assasin’s Creed 2 made them so much more money than AC1 in those 2 months of no piracy at all. I believe they made even less money that time showing in their lower retardation in recent games. +25% would be a huge huge number and it just isn’t realistic.

    • killias2 says:

      “You think only 0.1% of pirated copies are people who are just selfish little dicks and don’t want to pay their pay? ”

      I still think the most eye-opening article I ever read on piracy was this: link to

      So, to give a very short version of the argument, iPhone apps have about an 80% piracy rate. However, only 5% or so of iPhones are actually jailbroken. How does this make sense?
      Pirates tend to pirate far, far, far more than consumers buy. In fact, it is -highly- unlikely that pirates literally have the money necessary to buy all the products they steal. Keep in mind, this is before we get anywhere near the idea of “intention” to buy. We’re just talking naked capabilities here. Pirates steal because its free. It’s a costless endeavor. Most pirates don’t even play the vast majority of the games they pirate.

      The fact of the matter is that -very, very, very- few of “pirated” copies would translate to actual sales if piracy was impossible.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Speaking as a pirate. I do tend to pirate the things I wasn’t intending to purchase funnily enough. I buy the ones I wanted. If I enjoyed the game I pirated I often buy it in a sale, especially if it has good multiplayer.

      I also buy far more games than most of the ‘honest’ gamers I know. (Who almost all are guilty of pirating music, film or tv. But you know, that’s a completely different and for some reason acceptable thing.)

    • DigitalSignalX says:

      Wait, it was pirated and profitable, at the same time? IMPOSSIBLE I SAY.

    • Brun says:

      I don’t think there’s any debate that a game can be pirated and profitable at the same time. Given that most games ARE pirated on all platforms (including consoles!), all the major publishers would have gone out of business a long time ago if the existence of piracy precluded all profit. The debate centers around how much more profitable a game would be were piracy not an option.

    • Davee says:

      The Wolfire devs… Those guys are like the never-ending voice of reason. :D

    • Kollega says:

      Aww, fucknuggets. I wanted to make a pun thread, not (another) thread about piracy. Such a good (well, sort of) intention…

      I am disappoint in your pun-detection ability, RPS readership. Very, very disappoint.

    • Sarlix says:

      Sorry, it’s my fault. I interrupted the pun flow. Not sure if it’s my fault it turned into a piracy thread tho (I think it was inevitable) Now, if there was someway to merge the two…. puns and piracy..

    • Necroscope says:

      The Wolfire Blog article was great. That the ported games aren’t fun on PC is telling. I had the misfortune to play Wolfenstein [2009] last night, for example, un-installing it after 24 minutes. Being shouted at repeatedly to achieve an objective pisses me off. Clunky controls yuck. Dated graphics. Horrible AI. All characters appear to be stunted or squashed, small body big heads. Gone was all the PC-centric stuff that made RTCW awesome in it’s day. All this was compounded when the game crashed repeatedly prompting me to uninstall.

      Crysis 2 however, seeming to be a console-centric game I found quite fun apart from the gameplay segments which played themselves with a few key taps to succeed.

    • NightKid says:

      Take piracy numbers as potential growth instead of lost revenue, that’s how Valve succeeded with Steam … it created value and converted pirates.

      P.S. Games industry, please wake up to that fact soon.

    • cxaopiqw says:

      U.S. $ 97.99 so the price is definitely cheaper! Difficult to lower the network!

      Ainol of Novo 7, Paladin of First Android 4.0 the Tablet PC 7 Inch, 8GB 1080P Black
      link to

    • Yammo says:

      Please do make sure you keep “Developer” and “Publisher” separated.

  2. Lev Astov says:

    I just don’t understand how any developer can even pretend to doubt the profitability of the PC as a platform! The whole way they talk about it even now makes it sound like they’re surprised by this success. I mean, really, what are they smoking over there?

  3. Daniel Klein says:

    There’s only one possible explanation: the PC is a zombie. It’s dead, of course, but it just won’t! Stop! Moving!

  4. Anthile says:

    But that’s not possible! PC gaming is deaaad!

  5. MrPo0py says:

    This is nice to hear. I hope Rockstar are watching with a mind to do the same with Red Dead Redemption.

    • InternetBatman says:

      There have been rumors floating around that the code of Red Dead Redemption is too much of a mess for a PC port. Who knows if it’s true or not, but it does seem out of character for Rockstar to not release a port, even a shitty one, of their games.

    • Starky says:

      A mate of mine who did some QA for Rockstar North when he was at Edinburgh Uni doing computer science said the same thing to me – well not that it wouldn’t get a port, but that RDR was “broken as fuck” (his words), and was basically hacked into working order on the consoles – that almost every bug fix was just a specific to platform hack/workaround, rather than a proper codebase fix.

      How true what he said is, I’ve no idea, but he did get a game credit – though to be fair I think almost everyone and their mum got a credit in RDR.

    • vodkarn says:

      “that almost every bug fix was just a specific to platform hack/workaround, rather than a proper codebase fix.”

      This is console development in a nutshell – seriously.

  6. Casimir Effect says:

    Publishers don’t see profit until there are at least 7 figures, 9 if you count the pennies.

  7. valouris says:

    when will we begrudgingly realize that since they actually so easily made profit from a delayed PC port, they are going to keep doing the same thing. Make the game for consoles, and IF it’s good, and IF there is demand, THEN they are going to port it to pc, AND make profit, instead of risking the added costs from the get-go…

    They have been doing this for years and making profit, why would they change their strategy now?

  8. Kill_The_Drive says:

    Link is probably wrong, links to RPS forums instead.

  9. marlin says:

    Just THINK how much money they would have made if they’d released it at the same time as for the consoles….

  10. equatorian says:

    But what about couches? Won’t somebody think about the couches?

    • Lugg says:

      I always wonder about this. If I had a giant flatscreen TV, I’d instantly hook up my PC to it. There are plenty of gamepads for PC too (and you can even use your xbox360 and ps3 pads on it). So, where problem?

    • sneetch says:

      As someone who has done just that and spent a few hours last night playing Kingdom of Amalur on a very comfy armchair* with a 360 controller I can confirm that there is no problem.

      * Ok, an armchair isn’t a couch as such but it is like a single person couch so I believe the experience can be recreated on a couch. You may have to download the latest drivers for your couch, though.

    • equatorian says:

      The problem is that the PC is too intimate for couches, obviously. PC gamers are anti-cuddling, anti-snuggling plebians.

      (I don’t think he’s going to live that comment down, even though it’s technically not his.)

    • paterah says:

      There is absolutely a problem with that, my pc is sitting VERY far from the TV and for good reasons, while my console is just standing there next to it.

    • Lugg says:

      “The problem is that the PC is too intimate for couches, obviously. PC gamers are anti-cuddling, anti-snuggling plebians.”

      Wait, so we PC players are more into intimacy than consoleboxers, but only with our technical devices?

      “There is absolutely a problem with that, my pc is sitting VERY far from the TV and for good reasons, while my console is just standing there next to it.”

      There are very, very long HDMI cables and wireless keyboards/mice that would solve that problem!

  11. Suits says:

    Congrats Remedy, hope you are convinced of PC experience now.

    • MSJ says:

      They never need any convincing. Microsoft did.

      Actually, maybe not Microsoft either. They just want something exclusive for their console and Alan Wake is pretty and looks interesting enough for that purpose.

  12. pilouuuu says:

    Even if developers have to spend some money, time and work converting the game to a superior piece of hardware, even if piracy lowers their profit, why would they prefer earning nothing at all by not releasing it on PC? I hope this case brings light to their thoughts, especifically an Eveready flashlight.

  13. Apples says:

    I also kind of spitefully wish it had failed (for the same reason! oh deadly premonition), but then they would have used that as proof that the PC is not a profitable platform. It’s like that comic that gets posted sometimes where when a guy does a maths problem wrong, it’s proof that that guy sucks at maths – then when a woman does the maths problem wrong it’s evidence that women suck at maths. If a PC game fails it’s supposedly because the PC is inherently nonprofitable and piracy is rampant, not because the game was rubbish.

  14. djbriandamage says:

    I can’t fathom the tepid critical responses to this game. Having heard nothing about it, but noting the developer was Remedy, I bought this on day one sight unseen. I played 15 hours in 3 days and was riveted, gasping, mouth agape, leaning into my monitor, and exclaiming emotions more than any other game I’ve played in a long, long time.

    I love this game. I think it’s a masterpiece. I’m thrilled to have played this. Remedy has proven itself yet again to stand amongst the giants of its creative peers.

  15. ningall says:

    If “good” games are on Steam and it doesn’t have GFWL I will probably buy it on release. Otherwise definitely at some point in one of the sales.

  16. The First Door says:

    Hurray! I’m happy that it’s been a success for them. It makes me quite happy that something a little bit different is making a profit.

  17. The First Door says:

    I think it would also be fairer to say that you think the game is pretty bad. I, for instance, think it’s pretty good, as do many others.

  18. kataras says:

    Although it’s getting very repetitive towards the end, I m still glad I bought it. Could have been so much better though, if it was leaning more towards survival. The atmosphere is great too. Alan is a douche bag.

  19. Unaco says:

    What’s this? I must have forgotten about this when they abandoned the PC release those many months ago. Also, although I do have a couch in my study, where my main gaming rig is, my keyboard.mouse cables won’t stretch that far.

    Is the lesson from this that Developers can ignore the PC for ~2 years, treat them as if they’re nothing, then come along and cash in on us?

    • subedii says:

      Dropping the PC version wasn’t Remedy’s call. MS wanted it to be an exclusive 360 title and forced it as such.

      Once the exclusivity deal ran out, they immediately ported it over. It was very surprising to me, but also very telling that instead of going to a 3rd party publisher, Remedy directly funded this port out of their own pocket. Make no mistake, this is something that Remedy wanted to do.

      Speaking of MS, the couch comment? Yeah that was also from an MS rep. For obvious reasons.

  20. Big Murray says:

    This can only be a good sign. Developers need to see that the PC is a profitable market, contrary to the PR crap that gets put out by the likes of Ubisoft and Activision.

    • Final8ty says:

      Some Developers want to put the PC down as it would be more profitable still if every PC gamer just bought the Console version as they would save the development cost of the PC version, they don’t care about the possibilities of the PC version being better on may aspects and offering versatilely on how its played.

      Monitors, TVs, Multi screen, higher res, AA & AF, more control method options..ect.

  21. The First Door says:

    The creepy forest thing is definitely part of it and I agree it isn’t anywhere near perfect. To be honest, I think it is a combination of the story, the atmosphere and it just feeling a bit different. I tend to be much more willing to overlook certain annoyances when something sets the game apart a little.
    P.s. My personal bugbear is that it insists on putting a dot on the minimap every five seconds near the beginning, implying you might not know (or be able to find) where the kitchen is in a three room apartment.

  22. deadstoned says:

    I just wish Rockstar would realize the potential with a Red Dead Redemption to PC port. Until then I feel betrayed, I trusted you Rockstar! Noooooooooo!

    • Apples says:

      RDR is, in my opinion, the best game Rockstar has made, and it certainly must have turned a big profit on consoles. Why they’d port the lackluster genre-confused L.A. Noire and not RDR is beyond me :(

    • Torgen says:

      They’re adamant that it is out of the question, because it would cost too much to alter the technology/code or some such. They’ve been quite firm when asked, with an undertone “don’t f*ing ask me again.”

  23. wazups2x says:

    Glad it’s doing so well. It’s a great console port, except I’m just waiting for them to fix the mouse acceleration before I play any more.

  24. MuscleHorse says:

    It’s a very solid game and a very solid port. Very much enjoying it. The only issue I have with the whole affair is the lead character and his voice acting. Bring back Max.

  25. sneetch says:

    i can perfectly accept i have different tastes than other ppl, but to tell you the truth im having a tough time seeing what is there to like in this game

    is it the creepy forest thing ? i accept it is well done, better than all alternatives i cant think of, but how many identical fights with the “taken” can you do before you get bored ?

    Yes, but at its very core nearly every game is made up of repetitive actions, whether or not you care that they’re repetitive depends on if you enjoy the actions themselves. Compare this to one of Remedy’s best games, the critically acclaimed Max Payne. Max Payne is also full of repetitive fights against repeating enemies in very similar locations (snowy New York) but the combat is fun and the story was enough to make me play it compulsively.

    I find the idea of this game intriguing and I’m looking forward to playing through it (maybe starting tonight) I may very well find it boring and repetitive or the schlocky horror setting may draw me in to the story line, I’ll just have to wait and see.

  26. hypercrisis says:

    Does anyone remember a Remedy article many years back where they said they were done with PC because everyone pirated Max Payne?

  27. paterah says:

    I found the game to be phenomenal and an excellent port on that. Therefore I’m very happy that they recouped the cost.

  28. Apples says:

    sneetch: there’s also the issue in that there is nowhere to GO with that repetitive action in AW. In some games you may gain skill and expertise by performing an action over and over; in AW nothing happens. You begin as you mean to go on. Sometimes you might get an extra weapon or have a fight in a unique location (which of course changes almost nothing about the actual gameplay), but 90% of the game is fighting enemies on a forest path with a single pattern of attack which you know in advance and, once you learn it, never need to master.

    Personally I think the fact that the core of games is made up of repetitive action performing is one of the main weaknesses of the medium. Not inherently so (because as I said, there is a point to some repetitions) but it’s really easy to fall into the trap of designing the main arc of the narrative and setting and then putting in a lot of ‘padding’ gameplay in-between actual occurances. Which is what AW feels like, sadly.

  29. CptPlanet says:

    “repetitive action”, what? You just described almost any action/adventure game ever. This is not a game where you gradually evolve your character or do theorycrafting, Skyrim and other similar games take care of that pretty well. You play this game for the storyline and for the setting, which is what you do in 99% of the games in the horror genre.

  30. rockman29 says:

    I think the 29.99 launch/sale price was an important feature of the success. I think PC games should really, really look into following a similar near-budget price model for big games. I know I’d buy a lot more games at launch if it were like that.

  31. PC-GAMER-4LIFE says:

    Its a no brainer to port to PC nowadays if your game is any good PC gamers will buy it then you also have the digital sales which increase the bottom line even more. I wonder how much money has been made from Steam sales where a game is forgotten about then comes to the sale & sells 50-100K as its very cheap like the £3.74 deals. The only games left which could & should be ported to PC are:

    Uncharted Series
    God Of War Series
    Dark Souls

    All would sell pretty well most PC gamers would not buy a console to play those anyway so they have little to lose by porting & just make them digital only to minimise the marketing costs=instant profit!!

    • DocSeuss says:

      Weird. Why would someone want to port a bad game, like Uncharted, or a fixed-camera game with wonky controls, like God of War (both Sony exclusives) to the PC?

      One would think that Microsoft’s exclusives, which tend to be developed by PC devs (and happen also to be great games, which one cannot say for the two aforementioned titles), would make the transition better. Indeed, they already have. Just look at Halo, Gears, and Fable for proof of that. Forza would make a brilliant addition to my PC racing game stable.

      If you’re hellbent on porting a Sony exclusive, then get the Sly games, Infamous titles, or Twisted Metal ported. They’re the best/only reason to own a PS3.

    • paterah says:

      The Uncharted series is inarguably one of the best series of this generation, leave your fanboi shit at the door. God of War? Excellent also. Sony on the other hand would rather see themselves destroyed rather than port their games to PC.

    • Jimbo says:

      I have a PS3 and I don’t rate Uncharted that highly either tbh. Underneath the high production values and the swish cutscenes I still find it a pretty mediocre gaming experience.

      I don’t think porting first party exclusives makes a whole lot of sense anyway.

    • MSJ says:

      Sony games never gets ported to PC, so don’t wait for them.

      Also, asking why ‘bad’ games should get ported is a bit strange to be done under a topic about Alan Wake selling well. There are many people who thinks Alan Wake is ‘bad’, although the game itself may be ‘good’.

  32. Joehall219 says:

    Alan Wake’s up a rich man.

  33. povu says:

    For gods sake, port Dark $oul$ already.

  34. DocSeuss says:

    “be an unqualified success as far as survival horror games about narcissistic fiction authors go”

    Well, it better not be.

    …It’s not a goddamn survival horror game. Fucking hell, why the shit do so many people insist on calling Alan Wake a survival horror game? They’ve been doing this since 2010. It’s not a goddamn survival horror game. It never was. It’s an action thriller. It says so on the box. It plays like one. It’s what it is. It is not, never was, and never will be a fucking survival horror game.

    I say this with great, swear-punctuated emphasis because literally everyone I know who dislikes the game thinks it’s survival horror, and then compares it to the standards of good survival horror games. Since it is not a survival horror game, and does not fucking play like one, they get mad at on it and it doesn’t get the love it deserves.

    It’s like being angry at Max Payne for not being a point and click adventure game. “Well, it has noirspeak, and other games that have had noirspeak were point and click adventures, but this Max Payne game doesn’t feature much pointing OR clicking, so it’s a bad game! It can fuck off, it can!”


    Weird that mislabeling things is just about the only thing that angers me about gaming, outside of bad ports, but it is.


    Also, in more happy thoughts: the number of games that become profitable on the PC is quite high. Granted, Alan Wake probably only needed to make its PORT profitable, because the voice work, game assets, and all that stuff had already been created and paid for by Microsoft, but still! If the PORT was profitable in 48 hours (MAKE NOTE: IT IS ACTUALLY A BETTER PC PORT THAN A VALVE GAME–adjustable FOV and stuff aren’t available in Valve’s latest two games, while their menu sizes have been designed for televisions; it’s on par with Deus Ex: Human Revolution for “game that makes as much advantage of the PC controls as it possibly can”), then one would wonder two things:

    1. Obviously, the game would become profitable in a reasonable amount of time. This makes one think that the PC would be the best place to resurrect inventive A- and B-games. After all, titles like STALKER thrive here, where they’d do miserably on consoles. Making these relatively high quality, unique games and releasing them solely through digital download methods on the PC might help bring about a renaissance in game design.

    2. Why don’t more people spend time developing good ports? We all know that bad ports generally do pretty poorly, and judging by the numbers, good ports (or games developed for the PC first) tend to do really well. Hopefully more people take note and spend more time on releasing good PC versions.

    Also, that attitude towards piracy is really refreshing. Remedy really is the best game developer on the planet.

  35. DocSeuss says:

    I wish someone would explain what they mean when they say it’s repetitive. It’s literally like every other shooter out there, by which I mean that it isn’t repetitive at all. You fight guys when they show up. You have a lot of ways to do this.

    It’s no more repetitive than Half-Life 2, and everyone seems to have a boner for that game, so why not Alan Wake, which actually has better guns and better-differentiated enemies?

    Even the levels are more varied than people seem to think. You’ve got that bit down in the mines, the level where you travel through town with the Sheriff, the entirety of the labyrinth puzzle, the police chase that leads to the radio tower, the farm level, the dam, the lumber mill… lots of variation there. Surely you can’t tell me that racing a jeep around a rail yard running over Taken is the same as fighting an evil monster truck is the same as running through the forest in the first level?

    Yes, ultimately, each and every enemy wants to melee you or throw knives. In Max Payne, every enemy wanted to shoot you. In Serious Sam, it was a mix of shooting or melee. In Half-Life, it was… shooting or melee.

    I think really people are just hung up on the idea that they had to burn away the darkness first and THEN shoot the enemies. That extra step makes people NOTICE, and since they NOTICE, they don’t take it for granted, which means they find it repetitive. It’s user idiocy, in other words.

    Hm. Then you’ve got the problem with people thinking that it’s a survival horror game, and trying to play it like one, which means they’re playing it wrong, which means that they don’t ENJOY playing it, even though, once again, it is their fault for being stupid.



    I guess the way to solve this would have been to send MORE enemies at the player, making encounters more frantic (similarly to Dead Space 2), and making light hold them at bay, rather than being a REQUIREMENT for combat.

  36. Apples says:

    ““repetitive action”, what? You just described almost any action/adventure game ever.” It’s worth pointing out that although in many action/adventure games you perform the same literal actions over and over again (and of course all those actions can be reduced to pressing buttons repetitively), there is usually at least a mental difference in what you are trying to do. For example, in Heavy Rain and Fahrenheit, EVERY action is a QTE. Many people criticised it for this, yes, but it FELT less repetitive than Alan Wake’s gameplay because you were ‘tricked’ into believing that you were not doing the same thing over and over again. “Now you are trying to play the guitar,” your brain said. “Now you are trying to shoot someone. Now you are trying to hide evidence.” Alan Wake has not only no variation in literal mechanics, but also every action is mentally “Now you are trying to shoot someone.” In addition, it divides its gameplay sections and narrative sections so heavily, and keeps those gameplay sections so strictly to only one action, that any illusions of control, seamlessness or variation is lost.

    DocSeuss: Most shooty games including HL2 actually have a lot of different weapons, different enemy patterns/types, and require mastery. AW has very few weapons and basically one main enemy type so I’m not sure why you say it has ‘better’ weapons and more varied enemies?

    edit: ok I just googled and AW has three enemy types and four weapons, excluding flashlights/flares, two of which are shotguns and therefore pretty similar. That does not allow for ‘a lot of ways’ of fighting. It can’t really help but be repetitive and simplistic.

  37. Kaira- says:


    Funny, I can count… let’s see, at least 5 enemy types. Normal Taken, fast Taken, strong Taken, poltergeist, crows, each requiring different tactics. And weapons… there is flare, flashbang, revolver, shotgun, pump action shotgun, rifle, flare gun. That comes up to 7 weapons, not to count the environmental weapons such as searchlights.

  38. RobF says:

    It *is* pretty repetitive though, isn’t it?

  39. DuddBudda says:

    I bought A.Wake on its release for 360.

    I was so excited.

    And then I returned it the next day.

    Crap combat. I don’t care if it’s repetetive. Max Payne was repetetive, but Max was intense, slick and satisfying – A.Wake is none of those things.

    Max was also wrapped up in a complete world with a seamless atmosphere, doing interesting things with how games create these impressions. But A.Wake has a

    Crap Atmosphere. There were some webisodes that came out before release. They were weak, but gave me the impression of some kind of mystery and tension in a developed game world – A.Wake had no mystery and no tension and was set in a bland-as-andrex rip of Twin Peaks.

    Crap, unholy scat-porn crap, writing. And no, I don’t think it was ironic. Even Steven King isn’t that bad. Max Payne was B-Noir, it’s allowed to be silly and hyperbolic. Alan is such a pompous dick of a game and character that it can’t be forgiven for lacking the imagination to even begin to be hyperbolic. Alan’s writing is just a collection of metaphors from shitty teen emo songs by bands with names like My Bleeding is Poetry.

    I haven’t ever bought a game that I hated as thoroughly as I hated A.Wake

  40. DocSeuss says:

    Apples, yo, Alan Wake has seven weapons (flashlights kill crows, poltergeists, possessed vehicles, and goo) and ten major enemy types, with subtle AI variations (normal dudes, fast dudes, small dudes, knife-throwing dudes, big dudes with hammers, bigger dudes with chainsaws, goo (as they can be defeated), birds, poltergeists, and vehicles).

    Your heavy rain remark is bullshit. A QTE is a QTE is a QTE. That you found Alan Wake tedious probably has everything to do with the fact that there is a prerequisite to killing any enemy, where most shooters wouldn’t. That makes it stick out, even though it’s no more repetitive.

    Also bullshit is your shooty remark: in Alan Wake, you have a healthy mix of puzzle solving and people shooting (and it should be noted that while the puzzles themselves are simple in order to keep up the pacing, they are not 90% physics puzzles that exist to show off what a neat thing physics is, like a certain game I could mention).

    Thirdly, and finally, the suggestion that the story and gameplay sections are broken up is wrong as well. Yes, there are certain non-combat cutscenes, but much of the story is told through the gameplay as well, like the phone conversations with [spoiler], the chase through the gully at night, the rockstage, the entirety of Acts IV and V, and so on and so forth.

    It’s fine that you didn’t like the game. I don’t mind about that. Your reasons, however, are bullshit.

  41. Freud says:

    Profitable in PC money, yes. But you can’t buy much with PC money, only barter it for bread and tractors. Console money on the other hand can be used to rent prostitutes, travel and buying recreational drugs.

  42. dangerlift says:

    If you want to play this game right, do what I did.

    Do it for Barry.

  43. JoeyJungle says:

    “(and it should be noted that while the puzzles themselves are simple in order to keep up the pacing, they are not 90% physics puzzles that exist to show off what a neat thing physics is, like a certain game I could mention).”

    Am I the only one who liked the HL2 physics puzzles?! That’s the certain game right?

  44. nzmccorm says:

    Now, maybe I’m weird, but I thought this game was basically a shit version of Shattered Memories. Which is an odd thing to say, considering that one’s a Wii game that sold nothing from a studio with trash pedigree and one’s a big opus from Remedy, who made fucking Max Payne, but it’s true.

    There are a lot of reasons, to do with Tone, and choices about combat, and stuff, but a big part of it is story. In the opening, Alan Wake says that a good horror story never really gives you an explanation, and I think that’s true. But in the end, everything gets explained. In Shattered Memories? Not so much.

  45. Yar says:

    I liked it enough to play through the whole thing, which is more than I can say for a lot of games. The combat wasn’t just repetitive. It’s more like… they set out to create an interactive story, but the execs made them put man-shooty in it. So they tacked on a thoughtless combat system that just kind of gets in the way of walking through the cool story.

    The farm level was awesome. For the idea of it, not because the combat was marginally more interesting.