Alone in the Dark Security and System Requirements Revealed (PC)

[fitbabits]

One (made-up) word - SecuROM.

Perhaps realizing that even the mere mention of SecuROM inclusion with PC games is enough to send potential consumers to their nearest torrent site, Atari sends along a press release in an effort to calm the already inflamed passions of PC gamers everywhere by revealing that it's not all that bad:

The PC version of Alone in the Dark is protected using SecuROM™ online activation. This requires that in addition to the content on the game disk, players download an additional component via an internet connection in order to install and run the game. Once the game has been correctly installed and activated, it can be played whilst offline.

To install the game on a different computer, players must revoke the serial number when uninstalling from the first machine (this is an automatic option during the uninstall process).

For activation instructions and more information on the revoke system and license use, please go to the SecuROM FAQ at http://www.aitdunlock.com
Oh, and the system requirements? After the break...

[fitbabits]

As promised, the system requirements for the PC version of Alone in the Dark are as follows:


Operating System: Windows XP/Vista 32-bit & 64-bit
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz or Athlon X2 +3800 (Intel Pentium 4 3.4 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 +4000 recommended) *
Memory: 1 GB RAM (2GB recommended)
Hard Disk Space: 9.5 GB free
DVD-ROM Drive: 4X speed or faster
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 or ATI Radeon X1950 or better (NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX or ATI Radeon X1950 XTX or better recommended)
Sound: DirectX version 9.0c-compatible sound card
DirectX: DirectX version 9.0c (included) or higher
Internet Connection

[Norse]

Atari has some problems with the early (and poor) reviews that has popped up:

Scandinavian games site GameReactor (The Norwegian edition specifically) were one of the first to review Alone in the Dark. They gave it 3/10. Ouch. However, they then promptly pulled the review, and accusations of shady dealings were levelled against the site by Atari, who said that press copies had only been sent out the day before (the review has since been reinstated, and the 3/10 stands).

Odd, seeing as many other European publications also had reviews go live this week, but whatever. 3. German site 4Players reviews the game. Gives it 68%. Then is threatened with legal action by Atari because, yes, Atari had no idea how the site got a copy of the game.

4Players' EIC Jörg Luibl says that Atari's lawyers have accused them of "breaking the law and violating the rights of their client (Atari)", all because 4Players reviewed the game prior to its release, but without using a copy sent to them by Atari. 4Players maintain that, like many other games not sent to them by publishers, they secured a copy via a "trusted dealer".


UPDATE - Tor-Steinar Nastad Tangedal, from Norwegian site Gamer.no, has contacted us with a similar story. He writes (though without proof we're unable to confirm this):

"Gamer.no was the second publication in the world to publish a review, and we also gave it 3 out of 10. The review was based on a retail copy obtained from a store on Tuesday this week. Atari contacted us just minutes after it was published, claiming that our review is probably based on a preview or pirated copy, and requested it to be removed. We never removed it, of course."


I like this kind of drama (http://kotaku.com/5018149/legal-mess-over-euro-alone-in-the-dark-reviews-[update])

[Grey]

I like this kind of drama (http://kotaku.com/5018149/legal-mess-over-euro-alone-in-the-dark-reviews-[update])

Yea, realy ridiculous reaction to many many (mostly or even only) online magazines scores.

They even said it "violates the right of our client"


for the OP: I've heard the install takes very long, someone spoke of an hour + downloading the verfication.

[Grey]

/e

oh its alread in the quote :]

[Commissar Rob]

Wow! Is this the way Phil Harrison is going to work with the press?

[menage]

Take it like a man Atari. If it was a 10/10 you wouldn't be ringing any bells.
Although I've seen 7s already so a 3 is pretty low.

On topic:

I wonder of the keyboard/mouse interface controls better.

Also, take the criticsm and fix the PS3 version so I can buy that.

[TrackZero]

And people wonder why PC sales have been dropping off (yes yes, the Sims and MMOs aside).

I NEVER want to see the word "SecuROM" on a product I buy, ever. Fucking publishers need to get that through their head.

Now in this case, I plan to get Alone in the Dark on 360 so that's no big. But if I were getting it on the PC, honestly, I'd consider pirating it just out of spite.

[Telefrog]

This will probably be a shitty game anyway, but now the game makers can safely blame SecuROM when it underperforms. See? There's always a silver lining!

[TrackZero]

Take it like a man Atari. If it was a 10/10 you wouldn't be ringing any bells.
Although I've seen 7s already so a 3 is pretty low.


If the publisher has no idea how sites are getting copies for review, it means they aren't the game. They're most likely leaked unfinished copies of the game (same shit as when some little sites like those tried to review Half-Life 2 based upon the leaked code). IMHO they have every right to shut those fuckers down. It's like reviewing a movie based off a handy-cam version you watched and damning it before its release. It's lame, flat-out.

[Grey]

If the publisher has no idea how sites are getting copies for review, it means they aren't the game. They're most likely leaked unfinished copies of the game (same shit as when some little sites like those tried to review Half-Life 2 based upon the leaked code). IMHO they have every right to shut those fuckers down. It's like reviewing a movie based off a handy-cam version you watched and damning it before its release. It's lame, flat-out.

Thats just bullshit. 4players is the biggest german online page an can be compared to IGN or Gamespot. They would be the last to have to steal their games for reviewing. :rolleyes:

[TrackZero]

Thats just bullshit. 4players is the biggest german online page an can be compared to IGN or Gamespot. They would be the last to have to steal their games for reviewing. :rolleyes:

I don't care who they are. It could be EvAv for all I care. If the game isn't out, and it's not a review copy from the publisher, then it's not the game.

[fitbabits]

I don't care who they are. It could be EvAv for all I care. If the game isn't out, and it's not a review copy from the publisher, then it's not the game.

The story from the German site is they got an early copy from a retailer. It's a possibility, of course. After all, how many times has Target or Wal-Mart broken the street date on a title?

[Grey]

I don't care who they are. It could be EvAv for all I care. If the game isn't out, and it's not a review copy from the publisher, then it's not the game.

Ignorance doesn't help your arguments. There are several legal ways for people in the industry to get game copys. They sure don't have to use warez.

[Kem0sabe]

The story from the German site is they got an early copy from a retailer. It's a possibility, of course. After all, how many times has Target or Wal-Mart broken the street date on a title?

Exactly what i was going to say.

Atari is just trying to bully those sites that are giving early bad reviews.

This is not the best way to go about things, especially considering this is the first major release for Harrison.

[Norse]

Retailers over here have had the game in stock since early this week. The two Norwegian sites are serious and wouldn't be stupid enough to pirate a copy. They don't usually publish reviews this early.

[TrackZero]

Ignorance doesn't help your arguments. There are several legal ways for people in the industry to get game copys. They sure don't have to use warez.

If the reviewer can't even state where they got the game from with proof, then I also can completely ignore them.

Edit: Also, frankly, I have a really hard time believing that the game is a 3/10. Considering the development time and apparent work put into the title, and from everything I've seen, that's a hard number for me to imagine it getting. 5 or 6/10, sure, I could buy that, these things happen. But 3? Get real.

[fitbabits]

If the reviewer can't even state where they got the game from with proof, then I also can completely ignore them.

You may be getting ahead of yourself here. It's been stated, both by the site in question and others, that the game was bought from a retailer. The street date was broken.

[Telefrog]

If the reviewer can't even state where they got the game from with proof, then I also can completely ignore them.

Edit: Also, frankly, I have a really hard time believing that the game is a 3/10. Considering the development time and apparent work put into the title, and from everything I've seen, that's a hard number for me to imagine it getting. 5 or 6/10, sure, I could buy that, these things happen. But 3? Get real.

Yes... No game with a long develoment time has ever sucked. :rolleyes:

[menage]

If the publisher has no idea how sites are getting copies for review, it means they aren't the game. They're most likely leaked unfinished copies of the game (same shit as when some little sites like those tried to review Half-Life 2 based upon the leaked code). IMHO they have every right to shut those fuckers down. It's like reviewing a movie based off a handy-cam version you watched and damning it before its release. It's lame, flat-out.

So only sites which get the Atari review copy's would be able to review it. they could make a nice pick then couldn't they. What you gave our former game a 6, no copy for you then.

We're not talking pre alpha codes here. Just broken street dates.

[Morangie]

Wow! Is this the way Phil Harrison is going to work with the press?
If it was good enough for Sony, its good enough for Atari.

[Kem0sabe]

If the reviewer can't even state where they got the game from with proof, then I also can completely ignore them.

Edit: Also, frankly, I have a really hard time believing that the game is a 3/10. Considering the development time and apparent work put into the title, and from everything I've seen, that's a hard number for me to imagine it getting. 5 or 6/10, sure, I could buy that, these things happen. But 3? Get real.

Its a subjective review. I wouldn't get too worked up about reviews, its their own personal opinion after all. Play the demon when it comes out, make up your mind and be done with it. *shrug*

[TrackZero]

Yes... No game with a long develoment time has ever sucked. :rolleyes:

3 out of 10 sucked? With the video I've seen, it at the least it warrants a higher rating just for being a physics sandbox.

[TrackZero]

So only sites which get the Atari review copy's would be able to review it. they could make a nice pick then couldn't they. What you gave our former game a 6, no copy for you then.

We're not talking pre alpha codes here. Just broken street dates.

Broken street dates still fuck with the game. I'm trying to recall if it was CoD4 or which other big title in the last year where on release day it received a patch (and those who played it before the street date, therefore, weren't playing what everyone else did when they got theirs on the actual day it came out).

[mkelehan]

3 out of 10 sucked? With the video I've seen, it at the least it warrants a higher rating just for being a physics sandbox.

You'd pay $40 for a physics sandbox? I wouldn't pay $10.

[TrackZero]

Anyways, whatever, I'll sound off. I just think it's damn lame, whether the game is good, bad, whatever when it's the publisher's last hope of survival, to essentially get traffic for your site by writing bad reviews of a game by breaking street date. So I can understand where Atari is coming from on this. You can say they're being jerks for pursuing legal action, but if you step back it's quite easy to see where they're coming from on this.

And for my 2 cents, I have a hard time believing said reviews from all the footage we've seen of the game. What you can say is subjective (as doing a review always is), I say is also nothing more than a sad attempt at some gaming sites trying to grab "street cred".

[Crowe]

I don't care who they are. It could be EvAv for all I care. If the game isn't out, and it's not a review copy from the publisher, then it's not the game.

So your saying it is absolutely impossible for them to have gotten their hands on a retail version.

[Norse]

Anyways, whatever, I'll sound off. I just think it's damn lame, whether the game is good, bad, whatever when it's the publisher's last hope of survival, to essentially get traffic for your site by writing bad reviews of a game by breaking street date. So I can understand where Atari is coming from on this. You can say they're being jerks for pursuing legal action, but if you step back it's quite easy to see where they're coming from on this.

They should go after the retailers and not the reviewers. The sites hasn't done anything wrong as long as there isn't a NDA in place that states that the site can't publish a review before the ship date. The gamercard for the Norwegian reviewer is availble and it says that he played it on 18th of June.

[Lutheran]

Please , its quite obvious to me the game is going to be disappointing. Though I wonder if it was a Wii only title if some people would still be as up in arms about the 3/10 score :) J/K

[menage]

Broken street dates still fuck with the game. I'm trying to recall if it was CoD4 or which other big title in the last year where on release day it received a patch (and those who played it before the street date, therefore, weren't playing what everyone else did when they got theirs on the actual day it came out).

That says fuck you to people without a web connection. Review the box I say and maybe correct that in a separate mention.

[ElfShotTheFood]

Trying to quell bad reviews by saying websites are reviewing pirated copies is just Atari doing damage control on an expensive game.

This game having hardly any reviews so close to the release date isn't a good sign: it's like movie studios who don't have press screenings of movies they know are bad.

[H.Bogard]

This is a bad trend. I wish they'd just fucking ship their games with Steam on the disc instead, atleast then we wouldn't have to worry about Spore-like SuckuROM DRM rootkits and whatchamacallems.

[Grey]

If the reviewer can't even state where they got the game from with proof, then I also can completely ignore them.

http://www.4players.de/4players.php/spielinfonews/Allgemein/8282/1803943/Der_4P_Kommentar.html

Blöd ist nur, dass wir den Test aufgrund der Verkaufsversion gemacht haben. Atari denkt in überraschender Unkenntnis der Vertriebswege, dass wir die offiziellen Verkaufsversionen ja gar nicht haben können - denn die hat uns Atari ja vorsichtshalber, trotz Nachfrage, gar nicht erst geschickt. Allerdings sind wir solche Methoden nach all den Jahren gewöhnt und haben uns die Versionen für Wii, PS2, Xbox 360 und PC bereits am Montag bei einem Händler unseres Vertrauens besorgt, der nahezu alle Spiele einige Tage früher auf Lager hat.


translate for yourself, I'm tired of proving the truth.

http://www.4players.de/4players.php/dispbericht_fazit/360/Test/Fazit_Wertung/360/7582/59263/Alone_in_the_Dark.html

It's pretty much the same what users on this very forum are saying (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54841)

Your defense is total weak because the print magazines got their review copys long time ago - as usual. Atari only bitches about online reviews.

[Soap]

3 out of 10 sucked? With the video I've seen, it at the least it warrants a higher rating just for being a physics sandbox.

I don't know if 3 out of 10 is really that far out of whack. One of the "features" of episodic content for Alone in the Dark is the option to just skip a boss battle if it's just too hard for you. Sorry, but that's not a feature, that's just bad/lazy programming. And for a game that supposedly only has about 4 hours of content....well that just places Alone in the Dark firmly in the Rent for a weekend spot.

[mkelehan]

One of the "features" of episodic content for Alone in the Dark is the option to just skip a boss battle if it's just too hard for you. Sorry, but that's not a feature, that's just bad/lazy programming.Please explain.

[TrackZero]

Please explain.

Indeed, that sounds kind of badass. I'd love to be able to skip shit if I got stuck (hello @ Ninja Gaiden).

[Demo_Boy]

3/10 vs 6/10 does it really make any difference? back to bad company i guess

[Soap]

Please explain.

You remember that feeling that you get when you know you're coming up to face a boss or mini-boss and you always make sure that you have maxxed out all your health and ammo. It's exciting, tense, and very rewarding when you finally defeat the enemy.

Now throwing in the option to just completely skip that and go into the next act...well where's the sense of accomplishment? A programmer/designer should be creating a challenge that is appropriate to their target audience, not something that is so totally out of skew that there is no way for the player to win.

Creating a "skip battle" option does not solve this. What should have been done was to balance the enemy out so that it doesn't play "cheap" or adjust the environment more to the advantage of the player.

In short, "skip battle" = Zero Challenge (and less replayability)

[BlackPete]

SecuROM? Oops. Stopped reading right there. Sorry Atari.

[BlackPete]

You remember that feeling that you get when you know you're coming up to face a boss or mini-boss and you always make sure that you have maxxed out all your health and ammo. It's exciting, tense, and very rewarding when you finally defeat the enemy.

Now throwing in the option to just completely skip that and go into the next act...well where's the sense of accomplishment? A programmer/designer should be creating a challenge that is appropriate to their target audience, not something that is so totally out of skew that there is no way for the player to win.

Creating a "skip battle" option does not solve this. What should have been done was to balance the enemy out so that it doesn't play "cheap" or adjust the environment more to the advantage of the player.

In short, "skip battle" = Zero Challenge (and less replayability)

Ah, then it's a design issue, not a programming one. Yup, I agree it's just bad design. Calling it bad/lazy programming was a bit confusing.

"Skip battle" can lead to "Skip chapter" and finally a "Skip game" option. :D Slippery slopes, man!

[GrinR]

"Alone in the Dark will come with a new packing material - loose stool - that will ensure the media does not get damaged in shipping!"

I wouldn't buy that either.

[ElfShotTheFood]

You remember that feeling that you get when you know you're coming up to face a boss or mini-boss and you always make sure that you have maxxed out all your health and ammo. It's exciting, tense, and very rewarding when you finally defeat the enemy.

Now throwing in the option to just completely skip that and go into the next act...well where's the sense of accomplishment? A programmer/designer should be creating a challenge that is appropriate to their target audience, not something that is so totally out of skew that there is no way for the player to win.

Creating a "skip battle" option does not solve this. What should have been done was to balance the enemy out so that it doesn't play "cheap" or adjust the environment more to the advantage of the player.

In short, "skip battle" = Zero Challenge (and less replayability)

There's nothing stopping you from fighting the boss if you want, is there?

99% of boss battles are shit anyways, so I'm glad the option is there to skip them.

[biosc1]

I NEVER want to see the word "SecuROM" on a product I buy, ever. Fucking publishers need to get that through their head.


It worked with StarForce...there was enough of a backlash that I recall Ubisoft dropping it as a protection scheme (http://www.glop.org/starforce/).

[Devilturnip]

Hmm... so what they're telling me is that I can either pay them money for the ability to play the game on one of my computers, or I can steal it for free and play it on either of my computers. Fucking bravo, Atari.

[mkelehan]

You remember that feeling that you get when you know you're coming up to face a boss or mini-boss and you always make sure that you have maxxed out all your health and ammo. It's exciting, tense, and very rewarding when you finally defeat the enemy.

Now throwing in the option to just completely skip that and go into the next act...well where's the sense of accomplishment? A programmer/designer should be creating a challenge that is appropriate to their target audience, not something that is so totally out of skew that there is no way for the player to win.

Creating a "skip battle" option does not solve this. What should have been done was to balance the enemy out so that it doesn't play "cheap" or adjust the environment more to the advantage of the player.

In short, "skip battle" = Zero Challenge (and less replayability)

And therein lies the rub: they're trying to go BEYOND their target audience. You and I won't use this option. We'll play it through, saving our healing items and ammo for these encounters. But many more casual players who are frankly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Fils-Aime)intimidated by this type of game would get stuck at a boss battle and literally never move past it. Allowing them to wuss out doesn't cheapen it for us, I don't think.

Challenges like this that don't need to be met in order to see the credits are exactly why I love achievements.

[Oddmaker]

If you play the game your understand why this game is getting so much low scores. As for securom, REMOVE IT!

[Earth Djinn]

Either way, I'm still looking forward to the game, and have my CE pre-ordered for 360.

And I don't plan on canceling it either.

[H.Bogard]

When implementing protection, do they even consider if it's good for consumers and might even be a factor for them when deciding on purchasing the game? Seriously... when protection becomes a pain in the ass, there's no reason left but to play the warez version instead.

Steam nailed it right. Give people benefits to buy the legit product instead of turning to torrents just to be able to run the damn thing on their PC/Lappy at the same time.

[Windsong]

Thing is, some retarded (cough) warez group will only half-ass a release bc no one will want a cracked copy for a game that blows chunks. Then Atari will say "See?? Our DRM worked! They couldn't crack it!"

[muddi900]

Does SecuRom actually works??? You can still get crackes from the internet.

[tombofsoldier]

To the torrent sites! Good thing this isn't even a good game to begin with for all appearances.

[tombofsoldier]

Does SecuRom actually works??? You can still get crackes from the internet.

No, that's the only answer you need to figure out Securom is just a huge scam played on publishers.

[Sl1pstream]

If the reviewer can't even state where they got the game from with proof, then I also can completely ignore them.

Edit: Also, frankly, I have a really hard time believing that the game is a 3/10. Considering the development time and apparent work put into the title, and from everything I've seen, that's a hard number for me to imagine it getting. 5 or 6/10, sure, I could buy that, these things happen. But 3? Get real.

It's a 5, close to a 4, from what I've played. I returned the game in time to get my money back, but the first three episodes weren't fun at all. I can see why they'd give the game a 3.

[Deadend]

PC Gaming isn't dead... but fuck me if Publishers are not doing their best to kill it.

Disapointing that Alone in The Dark sucks, but oh well, not like I really gave a fuck about the game other than the fun with duct tape videos... that seemed kinda pointless AS YOU HAD A GUN TO SHOOT THINGS WITH BULLETS INSTEAD OF dynamite taped to blood.

[Stooby]

Dunno how many of the people bitching about the games have actually played it. I didn't like the old Alone in the Dark games, but got this one because the videos looked interesting. I was very pleasantly surprised. Maybe we are playing different games?

It has some of the most impressive sequences I have ever seen in a game. Rushing to escape a building as it falls apart was thrilling. The car chase through the city while the whole city fell apart was breathtaking. I died a few times on the car chase because I was paying too much attention to the scenery falling apart.

If I had to guess, I would say the bad reviews are sites reviewing incomplete copies, or sites reviewing the games low to generate hits.
PC Gaming isn't dead... but fuck me if Publishers are not doing their best to kill it.

Disapointing that Alone in The Dark sucks, but oh well, not like I really gave a fuck about the game other than the fun with duct tape videos... that seemed kinda pointless AS YOU HAD A GUN TO SHOOT THINGS WITH BULLETS INSTEAD OF dynamite taped to blood.
Bullets don't kill the zombies. You have to use fire to kill them. You can use the invention system to make your bullets able to kill zombies, but you still have to shoot them through the heart. The most effective method for killing zombies is hairspray + lighter or molotov cocktail.

[AversionFX]

This would've been my first Alone in the Dark. However, I'm not going to pick this up, because I refuse to support using SecuRom.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Yes... No game with a long develoment time has ever sucked. :rolleyes:

Magnanimous Gnome's about to make you his bitch.

[Fizzl]

Well prepare to say 'I told you so' I had a free weekend and thought I'd give it a go. I've got a new build on my pc, there is only wow, steam and 2142 on there at the moment so surely I have nothing to worry about from securom?

Conflict with Emulation Software detected.
Please have a look at http://www.securom.com/message.asp?m=emu&c=2500 for further, more detailed information.

I followed the instructions sent off the log file waited all day and still nothing back.

Its going back on Monday if I don't hear from them.

Honestly if I'd pirated it I suspect I'd have been playing it long ago. :(

[aries100]

And therein lies the rub: they're trying to go BEYOND their target audience. You and I won't use this option. We'll play it through, saving our healing items and ammo for these encounters. But many more casual players who are frankly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Fils-Aime)intimidated by this type of game would get stuck at a boss battle and literally never move past it. Allowing them to wuss out doesn't cheapen it for us, I don't think.

Challenges like this that don't need to be met in order to see the credits are exactly why I love achievements.

I have played (or tried to play) one of the earlier Alone in the Dark series. I have played the demo of Alone in the Dark 4 which, to me, basically felt like a shooter.

The thing is this:

By trying to appeal to the casual gamers, they are sort of throwing their target audience (their fans) for this game. And this simply isn't what devs. and publishers should be doing today, I find. A game that does not have strong hardcore base won't stay long on the market.

To pay full price for a game that's only 4-6 hours seems like highway robbery to me...

[Stooby]

Well prepare to say 'I told you so' I had a free weekend and thought I'd give it a go. I've got a new build on my pc, there is only wow, steam and 2142 on there at the moment so surely I have nothing to worry about from securom?

Conflict with Emulation Software detected.
Please have a look at http://www.securom.com/message.asp?m=emu&c=2500 for further, more detailed information.

I followed the instructions sent off the log file waited all day and still nothing back.

Its going back on Monday if I don't hear from them.

Honestly if I'd pirated it I suspect I'd have been playing it long ago. :(

Authentication servers are probably not working yet because the game hasn't actually been released.

[Mephistopheles]

SecuROM is a great protection scheme. It keeps my money securely in my bank account when I may otherwise have done something silly like spending it on a product a developer worked hard on so that I would enjoy playing it*. It's really nice of publishers to look out for my financial well being like that.

* Maybe not on this particular product, but the pile of games going straight to the "Do not purchase" bin nowadays because of this SecuROM business is getting pretty hefty of late.

[AntB]

I can honestly say that this was my most anticipated game of 2008; more so than GTA4, which I knew was going to be great but more of the same as in the previous games, which is cool, but I knew what I was going to get. AitD promised some great stuff, I mean look at the videos where he's climbing the building, that looks like pure gold and I really love the way they did the inventory, where you don't store a BFG in your pocket, but actually have it all stashed in your jacket and you see how.

So far there are two 7/10 reviews, and I'm going to go read the eurogamer review now to see what they thought it.

I'm hoping that there is at least something good in this game.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=154462
From the first page of the review, the game still sounds fucking awesome. Looks like where they screwed up is in the User Interface, they made it really difficult to do things. Oh well, still going to play it, just for the story and everything else awesome about this game.

[Disgustipated]

You'd pay $40 for a physics sandbox? I wouldn't pay $10.

I paid $10 for Garry's Mod 10, and it's easily worth $30.

[aries100]

So far there are two 7/10 reviews, and I'm going to go read the eurogamer review now to see what they thought it.

I'm hoping that there is at least something good in this game.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=154462

From the first page of the review, the game still sounds fucking awesome. Looks like where they screwed up is in the User Interface, they made it really difficult to do things. Oh well, still going to play it, just for the story and everything else awesome about this game.

I have just read the eurogamer review and I agree that this game looks to be a great game. The only gripe the reviewer had seems to be about the UI not working correctly or being very hard to use.

A 7/10 from Eurogamer seems an OK score, especially since it is explained that 'fans of the genre' or 'fans of the series' might like the game. If the interface problems could be fixed, it seemed like this game could get a 8/10 or even a 9/10

At least Atari didn't threathen to sue Eurogamer...