Hell - A cyberpunk adventure.

In '94 there was a problem. Of cause - there is always a problem. Some people had a vision. A view of what might be to come.

Martin Luther King had a dream. A vision of the world as it might be. Martins' vision was and is a beautiful thing. In other cases a vision is a warning. Orson Wells in the film 1984 offered us a possible version of the world as just such a warning.

In other cases a vision is simply a string of words that sound good. Under scrutiny they mean nothing. You see - having vision is one thing - being able, as in the case of the catch phrase of '94 which was'Interactive Movies', to execute on that vision, is another.

Imagine you are a developer in 1994. The public had been sold this vision. That vision was entitled 'Interactive Movie.' It was a buzz phrase - everyone was saying it: Atari, Commodore, Sega and 3DO. What did it mean? Simple you say - it's a movie you interact with...

..."One day" they said, not stopping to take questions, "The movie will be obsolete. Because the consumer will have technology powerful enough to design, direct and star in their own movie - the Interactive movie - and that future is now!"...

What does that mean? A game with a virtual set, some virtual actors with impossible artificial intelligence, unlimited sets, locations, props, lighting, key grips... All in 64Mb RAM? No - I don't think so.

So - back in the shoes of the developer - how do you create an Interactive Movie? Like a fish out of water the developers and designers of 1994 flopped about on the bank a little, not sure what to do. Eventually they simply plopped back into the river they had always swam in - the answer must have been obvious to some, they carried on making Video games, to others it was a opportunity and a challenge.

What is a movie? Well, it's a story of some description - portrayed on screen. So - an interactive movie would be a story portrayed on screen, moreover a story you interact with.

So - the question begs, how does that differ from other video games? Games where you have starred as space-ship commander shooting wave after wave of invading aliens. "Space Invaders" it was called. Was that an interactive movie?

You might argue it needs realism or greater depth.

So "Space invaders" with better graphics? And of cause a plot. O.K. That would be an Interactive Movie would it? Possibly, maybe, perhaps but in reality? No. In my humble opinion that's a video game.

Was Dizzy on the Spectrum an Interactive movie? Or the Last Ninja? What about HalfLife 2 on the Xbox? There was a script. A storyline. You interacted with it. Surely it was an Interactive movie or are they just video games - where is the line of distinction? What is the difference?

People in 1994 were expecting something new - something different - something that took advantage of CD media.

'Hell - a cyberpunk adventure' is another jab by developers of the 1990's trying to interpret the phrase 'interactive movie' and then execute on this poorly defined vision.

One aspect is immersion. Certainly it is one of the first things that hits you about 3DO Hell by Take 2 interactive. It tries hard to offer a vision of a futuristic cyber-hell. How this translates in the game is copious use of the colours red and brown and pseudo-demonic organic looking rooms - it's all very nice but it is plain old hell. There isn't, even within Dantes' vision or the Biblical vision of hell, much scope for improvement and no moulds were broken in the design of this game.

Next we have characters who takes part or 'actors'. In the case of Hell they are either computer rendered or digitised versions of real actors. Very real actors. In an attempt by Take 2 to create the ultimate interactive movie they employed Dennis Hopper, Grace Jones and Stephanie Seymour.

Sadly - for accomplished actors such as these - their performances were at best stilted and their game personalities are cliched. Hopper says '...mannnn', Grace Jones has you wondering what sex she is and Seymour is pretty and therefore digitized rather than rendered. Cheap and harmless but uninspiring.

Moving on to the 'Interaction' part. The interactive movie designer needs you, the player, to interact with the game or the movie. So what form is that interaction going to take?

Simulations is one route: Driving, shooting, flying, etc., allow you to interact with a game but can be difficult to use in propelling a story along. Also they take development time and money.

Other forms of interaction, such as conversation steering and simple puzzle solving are much more straight forward and can be implemented in such a way as to drive the plot along. This is what 'Hell' does. The game is split into two: Investigation and discovery, and, lengthy dialogues aside, solving puzzles.

You will find two forms of puzzles - such as stand on the right square to light-the-lights in the right order or gathering objects and combining them in such a way as to progress. Some of which are very good - others, sadly, plain old confusing.

The plot, set 100 years in the future, is one where you must solve the mystery of the oppressive US Government. The driver behind this investigation is a time limit set in place by your characters impending execution. The time limit is real. Failure to complete the game within the time limit will mean game-over.

The theme is gritty, dark, demonic and adult. Another cliche from the early to mid-90's: 'Adult themed Interactive movies'. Which translates as brief nudity, swearing and people being tortured. All culminated together meant Hell had a certificate 18.

So there we have it. An epic location: Hell. Real actors. Viewers Interaction and the last thing is of cause the plot and in my opinion Hell has a good plot. Combined, surely, the greatest Interactive Movie? The greatest execution of a somewhat vague vision?

It all should have worked but it doesn't - not quite. They remembered the actors, the locations, the graphics, the interaction and the plot - but then they forgot the most crucial ingredient - the fun. A game should be fun or engrossing or good solid entertainment. Sadly 'Hell' isn't. It barely manages to hold your attention. The mistake I believe they made was they focused on the vision - 'Interactive Movie' and missed the point - 'It's a game'.

In a nut-shell Hell is a 'Point and click' adventure. A very mediocre one.

...although the twist at the end is good!

Rare? Partially - If Snow-balls wrapped in bacofoil for safe keepin' are rare in Hell. There must be some right?

3DO Kid.