Is it possible to be genuinely thrilled that a game exists, while also thinking its not, well actually very good? Thats the question raised for us by The Dark Pictures Anthology: Little Hope, the second game in Supermassive Games ongoing efforts to translate the playable horror movie conceit of its 2015 hit Until Dawninto an episodic, manageable, and, frankly, cheaper format. The first Dark Pictures game, last years Man Of Medan, succeeded despite embracing many of the worst qualities of the low-rent horror movies Supermassive seems to love cribbing fromlousy and dull characters, cheap scares, sometimes aimless plottingon the strength of a few ambitious technical leaps, and a keen grasp of the fact that the people playing these games desperately need a way to share the shivers (and eye-rolls) they provoke with another human being. Little Hope operates on those same principles and tensionsexcept with a lot more eye-rolling to go around.
The Dark Pictures Anthology: Little Hope
Developer
Supermassive Games
Publisher
Bandai Namco Entertainment
Platform
PC, PlayStation 4, Xbox One
Introduced, once again, by The Curatora.k.a. Preachers Pip Torrens, whose horror host persona runs far closer to a generically menacing Rod Serling than the wonderfully hammy performance Peter Stormare gave in similar shoes in Until DawnLittle Hope hands players control over the survivors of a bus crash that occurs in its opening moments, stranding collegiate types Andrew, Angela, Taylor, John, and Daniel somewhere deep in rural Blair Witch country. This five-headed hydra of bickering, bad decisions, and general unpleasantnessled, in acting billing, if not actual practice, by Midsommars Will Poulteris forced by spooky circumstances to investigate the titular ghost town, where they find themselves subjected to a whole host of jump scares, familiar horror setpieces, and impressively gross demons that want to take their lives. (Provided they fail one too many button-mashing quick time events, at least.)
In terms of refinements on Man Of Medans play, Little Hope has none. Youll spend your time doing the exact same things as you did in the previous game: Investigating ruined structures, choosing dialogue options, tapping along to the weirdly frustrating stay calm minigame. The only difference is that now youre doing it in a creepy little town with a healthy dose of Salem Witch Trials hysteria in its background, and youre playing as a very sleepy-sounding Will Poulter while doing so. Also the same: The dedication to the principles of direct-to-video moviemaking, from the rote jump scares, to the unlikeable protagonists, to an ending of almost mammoth stupidity.
Because if Little Hope is a horror movie, its a B- or C-grade one, at best. It cant be easy to write dialogue that flows naturally while taking into account a whole Excel spreadsheets worth of past and present player decisionsand thats presumably why the game isnt, in fact, very good at doing that, instead generating moments of irritating repetition or jarring character beats in nearly every conversation. Furthermore, the fact that players have control over some, but not all, of how the games five leads (all of whom you control at one point or another) respond to various situations makes characterization inconsistent bordering on deranged; its also probably why Poulter gives a performance thats nigh-catatonic, since his character Andrew has to make sense of all the players various choices funneling through him. But despite the narrative jank, its all vaguely workable, as you poke around various locations in the town, alternating between investigations of its various mysteries, and action sequences that test your judgment, your reflexes, and, sometimes simply the moral character of the assholes youve been forced to embody.
Heres the (nearly) damning bit, though: Hypothetically, you have control over how this whole semi-cinematic story plays out. But in two playthroughs of the gameone played alone, and one run online using the games Shared Story featurethe plot hardly diverged at all, despite one run ending with total survival, and the other a complete wipeout of the cast. Given that the idea of telling your own story is a huge part of The Dark Pictures appeal, seeing things play out with such aggressive similarity between two separate runs is a genuine let-down. Branching narrativesi.e., whole chunks of game that youre paying to create, but which a large portion of your players will see only on a second or third playthroughare expensive, to be sure, especially when youre working on an episodic scale like this. But in Little Hope, the only thing you seem to have control over in most of its major moments is who lives and dies, and the untimely demise of most of the games main characters has as little impact on the plot as if they were disposable cannon fodder in any other quickly knocked-out monster flick. Its possible I just missed something, and a third run would drop the scales from my eyes and reveal the depths of the cleverness of the games storytelling. But it feels like a pretty blatant violation of the franchises key selling point to have a branching story that never actually bothers to branch.
So: Given this laundry list of complaints, a litany of unforced errors that run their way from its writing, to its gameplay, to the very bones of its structure, its immensely frustrating to admit that I still had a ton of fun playing through Little Hope. Partly its a symptom of the games length, which nails the sweet spot for a single (extended) play session. Anything longer would wear out its welcome, while anything shorter would push the games brevity into pure inconsequentiality. But getting a new, complete horror story like thiseven one with all the flaws on display hereon a semi-regular basis has the feeling of a sudden and welcome event dropping into the heart of horror season. Its genuinely refreshing, and the basic read, watch, run rhythms of the gameplay work as well here as they have in all of Supermassives other games.
The real appeal, though, is people. Little Hope uses the same online functionality as Man Of Medan, and its no less compelling here; rather than force players to switch off control of the story one-at-a-time, the game allows both connected players to control a separate protagonist simultaneously, navigating Little Hope together. Besides giving you someone else to laugh with at the games numerous goofy facial expressions, this decision sometimes introduces real tension into the mix, like when two player-controlled characters get into an argument with each other, firing their chosen dialogue responses back and forth. Its a fascinating idea that would probably benefit from a fuller, more focused implementation. But the version here is still interesting enough to absolve the game of a heavy handful of its sins. For this review, I teamed up with A.V. Club Assistant Editor Alex McLevywho had to endure my deliberate efforts to see what happens when every character under my control suddenly became the worst versions of themselves. Alex, how did playing through the Shared Story mode work for you?
Alex McLevy: This is now the second one of these weve played together, William (after Man Of Medan). After running through the bevy of problems inherent to the game with you upon finishing our story (reader, I played the version where nearly everyone died), I, too, have to confess that the general shittiness of the writing and jankiness of the gameplay didnt negate my enjoyment at all. If anything, the bad dialogue can be a real boon to online co-op play, because the sound of your regular laughter through my headphones was infectious, as our shared scorn for the one-dimensional nature of these odious characters lent the proceedings a festive vibe. I generally dislike horror movies this lamethe common error of assuming that unlikeable characters make for a better horror experience is dismayingly pervasive on the part of filmmakersbut for the purposes of a game, its surprisingly delightful to mock.
Oddly, theres almost nothing actually scary about Little Hope. The closest the game comes to scares is in the hints of something sinister, the fleeting glimpses of beings on the periphery of your vision, the occasional feeling that somethings about to appear. Once they reveal themselves, that unease dissipates. Still, I have to commend the game for actually creating a decision-making process that genuinely determines the outcome of the characters, rather than just tweaking the relationships among them while still relying on some quick mashing of the buttons during action sequences to decide if you lived or died. So the bountiful criticisms I have dont actually wind up making me want to dissuade anyone from playing it; this thing is fun.
WH:Little Hope is a mess. Some of its flaws are imposed by its structure; choose-your-own-narratives are inherently harder to land satisfyingly than ones where every sentence of the plot is under the authors control. But the things it does manage to get right are so strongand the potential for what could happen if a really talented writer got hold of this concept so alluringthat I cant help but have fond feelings toward it. Supermassive may have stumbled onto a truly bulletproof concept here; as with the first game, it ends with a promise that theres another installment to come, and despite myself, I cant help but be excited for the news.read more
Little Hope is a crappy horror movie, but a strangely satisfying game
