Alone in the Dark's 2024 remake is compelling but rough around the edges
Letting you loose on the Derceto Manor once more, Alone in the Dark is a modern re-imagining of the 1992 survival horro…
www.eurogamer.net
There are some major visual high points here, but also some technical issues worth addressing. Models are nicely detailed to start, with stars Jodie Comer and David Harbour providing their likeness for the leads. It even goes as far as using subsurface scattering for skin, with every freckle and mole scanned into the in-game renders. The environments, too, are densely littered with detail. Every room is distinctly themed: the rocking horses, swaying curtains, abandoned dolls, so many elements are interactive with physics-based properties. There's even volumetric lighting, plus light shafts streaking through balconies windows.
There's also a form of baked GI, where select rooms emit a vivid hue of green, red or blue - mimicking the eerie lighting of Dario Argento films. And lastly there are the nightmare sequences: at select points, you'll abruptly enter an alternate reality, one that's in ruin, set ablaze, or overrun with decay. Insects scuttle across its walls, rats scurry underfoot - and otherworldly creatures launch at you in a frenzy. There's a lot of great visual design going into the manor then. Additionally, as a fun Easter egg, the extras section even lets you switch to the original 1992 Alone in the Dark models.
Sadly, there are some rough spots, bugs, and even stability issues right now. Point number one is that the camera struggles while aiming in confined spaces - which is often, given that so much of the game is set in the manor. Combat really suffers, especially in trying to spot the prompt to pick up an object. Next, there are asset streaming issues. Running at pace through the manor, you'll spot a white flash artefact across upcoming textures around each bend. It's a distraction common to some Unreal Engine titles, with detail occluded by walls not rendering quickly enough and so it is here.
1 of 5
Series S falls behind in image quality with its 900p picture, and also lower quality textures - though most other settings remain the same between all three formats.
On top of that, there are low quality effects too, with the blood splatter from enemies looking especially poor. It's low resolution, as are the fire alpha effects on throwing a molotov cocktail. You'd expect a lot more from a PS5 or Series X title here. Lastly, and perhaps most urgent of all, I experienced a software crash about two to three hours into the adventure on Series S. It's good that the game autosaves regularly - but many of these points do need addressing.
PS5 and Series X deliver many of these highs and lows in equal measure, though Series S has a set of other drawbacks in visual settings. The good news, at least, is that all three consoles get a matching couple of modes. One for 60fps performance, the other being a 30fps quality mode that prioritises resolution. Taking PS5 for example, the resolution difference is really the only one of note - and all other settings stay in place regardless of selection.
There's native 4K on PS5 and Series X quality modes, which is a great start. Typically it's at the full 3840x2160, though rare moments drop to 1836p in taxing cutscenes. On Series S though, we're typically at 900p, with no noted res drops under. The result, inevitably, is that the image is blurrier on Series S, while fine sub-pixel detail like facial hair is also lost in the upscale from 900p. PS5 and Series X are identical in settings as you might expect: in textures, shadows and beyond - though the Series S has a few other notable quality reductions.
Last edited:
