First off, I really appreciate you trying to help me get into the game. I don't think I'll ever want to invest much time in it, but if I ever do, your general tips should be of use.

I don't want to start an argument or sound like an obnoxious prick, so let's just say that if you think Outcast's voice acting is great whereas you hated the one in Soul Reaver and I firmly believe it's the other way around that already says all that needs to be said. I'm not trying to say you have poor taste, but the voice acting in the Legacy of Kain series is universally considered the quality standard in video games, starting with Blood Omen, in which they introduced professional voice actors with theatre education, something unheard of in games until that point. Even if you were only listening to the actors reading the Legacy of Kain series' script without playing the games or watching a video, you'd still enjoy it. The Outcast voice acting, on the other hand, feels amateurish and sluggish, there's no sense of delivery and I can't connect to people and creatures reading their lines so blandly -- there's no emotion, no sense of pathos whatsoever, and that's no minor thing, if your game is trying to go for a cinematic feel. Voice acting and scripting is very important in any game that has at least a bit of an adventure sense to it.

I understand your reasoning behind the script being weak at first, and how all the shortcomings can be overcome by in-game world mechanisms, but that leads us back to what Sufyan was talking about in the first place: it feels cheap. The developers aren't good at writing an engaging script in proper English, so they come up with those in-game explanations that "make sense" but are ultimately there to mask flaws and laziness. These guys worked with Interplay, I'm sure they could have asked for a better English localization team (and I bet the script isn't as cheesy in French, by the way). I'm not an expert on this game because I got bored and frustrated, you're absolutely right about that, but I'm still entitled to my opinion, just as you are entitled to yours, when you say you couldn't get yourself to like Soul Reaver. It doesn't offend me, I can understand the reasons why you didn't like it. But I know way more young gamers that were able to like Soul Reaver and are now huge fans of the series, than young players who tried Outcast and instantly became fans. Soul Reaver doesn't need a remake, it may look ugly and dated, but the core of the game is still very appealing to gamers. Outcast needs a remake because it's just a very convoluted game that new players can't enjoy, not only because of the graphics, but because of its over-pseudo-complexity. It's boring right off the bat. Even with Lexicons and Gamsaavs and Items... Plus, the art design is ugly, if they're keeping with that, not even the enhanced graphics will bring new players in. If they don't give the game better pacing, if they don't rewrite most of the script, it's still going to be the same boring game but with shiny graphics. I'm a gamer who likes challenges in games and I can't like this game, just imagine how new players, who need video games to take them by the hand, will react to a remake that doesn't change those things...

Honestly, I think more people need to play the original, because it's a piece of video game history. It's a very bad game that could have been good, and I'm not willing to accept the developers' excuses as to the reasons why the script is bad, or why the voice acting is appaling because it "makes sense within the specific conditions of the game world and everything has an explanation" -- that's just the developers being lazy and the fans trying to come up with excuses to save face, or else they'd have to admit they think a very bad game is actually good. It is a bad game, there's no way around it, but it can show how creatively free video game development was, in the mid-to-late 90's, and how voxel technology could have been pushed farther. I don't regret having bought it here on GOG, but just so I could experience it for a bit and have an understanding of what people are talking about.

I hope it funds, so more people can know about the original and experience that impressive voxel work, but I don't think it will reach the goal, to be completely honest. The team is way too detached from reality, they don't know how to run a Kickstarter, and, bottom line, the game's just not good enough. It's not a matter of Denis Dyack "the game is too complex for you to understand" logic: if a vast majority that comes in touch with the game thinks it's bad, they can't all be wrong, now, can they?

Let's try this again: the talans learning English is a very important part of the story, it's not something that's just explained because the devs want to excuse themselves of their weak writing and voice acting. :D Anyway you can perfectly separate the two styles of writing the game uses by comparing the intro to the actual game.

I always failed to understand the preference of the theatrical style of acting in video games. That's what makes it cheap, when was the last time you saw theatrical acting in a good movie? Good voice acting sounds like real people and not like actors acting in a theatre. Just look what the so called professional voice actors did to the Silent Hill games:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV_NC4JGntM

I think the theatrical style suits Soul Reaver because they rip off Bram Stoker's and Anne Ricer's writing style and the characters in their novels talk like that, guess I just wasn't in the mood for that kind of overemotional stuff. Maybe next time.

Anyway: just because there is a vocal minority who thinks the game is bad based on a few hours of gameplay that doesn't really means that the game is bad. Come on, you what, seen two hours of a 25 hour long game and think you can judge it by that? :D It may have aged badly, but that can happen to even the best of us. It is intimidating at first because the game really throws a lot of information at you in the beginning, but you just have to tolerate that just like I'll have to tolerate the fact that you can't turn the camera in Soul Reaver (yes, that game aged badly too, just like the old Tomb Raiders).

Also: David Gasman is not an amateur voice actor:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1197229/?ref_=tt_cl_t1

Hnggggh! I think you're still misunderstanding both me and groze, and I think you are trying too hard to justify the writing. How do you explain duck faced hero Cutter Slade using improper grammar and puns obviously written by someone who is not very versed in the English language? I'm not sure why you bring up theatrical acting. "Good acting" is usually defined as carrying emotion and spontaneuity. All the voice acting I've heard in Outcast range from blandly reading the script to awkwardly following the voice director's unspecific demands ("Say this line like you are angry"). If you think the original Silent Hill 2 voice acting is natural sounding and that Silent Hill 2 HD is theatrical I think we have just found another two points to disagree upon. One is reading without emotion, the other is trying but failing to convey appropriate emotions. I blame neither because it's not like Japanese fiction is natural sounding to begin with, with even more laughable native voice acting.

Gaaah! Challenge accepted! I'm downloading Outcast again to push through no matter how boring the setting, the characters and the plot is. I don't normally care about stuff like this but I am starting to connect some dots: Belgian game where the white wisecracking know-it-all protagonist is greeted as a divine being by dark skinned primitive homogenous aliens. Oh joy, how original. Is this based on a lost episode of Tintin's Orientalist Post-Colonial Action Adventure Fantasies?

I'm just going to have an awesome time with this game.

LOL! Just why on earth are you going to put yourself through that?!

I admire your patience, if you're actually doing it (also, that Tintin analogy was spot on).

I hope you do! I certainly did.

EDIT: Oh, and the Tintin analogy is most certainly NOT spot on, as you will see once you get farther in the story.

I just love reading these total misinterpretations of the story. :D

Anyway, here's my perspective on voice acting: I don't care that much. Not every sentence or word spoken in Silent Hill 2 is perfect? Who cares, Team Silent wanted it that way and it just adds to the creepy atmosphere to me. The new voices totally destroy this experience. Guy Cihi is not a great voice actor? I don't care, he IS James Sunderland, even the character's looks were modeled after him and Team Silent hand picked him to play the part. Anyway, if you think the original SH2 cast acts like reading sentences from a piece of paper you are very wrong. :D Example: you can hear out the two personalities of Maria in the original, in the new you simlpy just can't.

Not perfect use of grammar in Outcast? Who cares, half the game is in weird talk English so that totally doesn't take me out of the game, Cutter is a grunt, not a teacher of English literature. :D

Please tell me there is some twist to this story and that it happens during the first region. These huge exposition dumps of uninteresting and unoriginal conflicts and characters are causing me actual discomfort. I don't want to give up but I think this game hates me more than I hate it back.

I tried watching a walkthrough so I would be able to tell you, but even watching someone else play this is boring as hell.

[EDIT] Also, on-topic:

They lost $4K, today. Either there were fake pledges or some backers got cold feet. Whether one reason or the other, the campaign just lost $4,000. Things are starting to look even worse for this project each passing day.

-- Oh, and most backers are really mad at the design of the shirt that was promised as a reward for some "cleverly" Outcast-reference-worded tier (rightfully so, that thing looks awful) and are threatening to lower their pledges because they don't like the shirt's back design.

It's just the usual Kickstarter bs: if something's going badly you just project your frustration into something else. :D Weird they lost 4k though not because it matters much.

Sufyan: The story builds up really slowly so you'll have to wait for the end of the first region to get your first vague plot twist. Anyway if you want to speed combat up I suggest going to Talanzaar to buy some new weapons / upgrades.

Very well. I am telling you that there is a twist in the story, and that it happens when you find your first Mon. It does not have to be the Mon in the first area, you can travel wherever you want, and find whichever Mon you want. In fact, I recommend that you do take a tour, rather than staying in one area the whole time. Travel to the desert city, at least.

Now, more importantly: How did this thread get completely hijacked by two people hating on Outcast? We understand that you don't like the game, and you can express that by not donating to the Kickstarter campaign. But I don't understand why you're still posting here. Are you on some sort of crusade to convince the rest of humanity to hate the game too? Because that will never work. The game is fantastic and will always have devoted fans.

And you're both so wrong about the game. You've played only the very beginning, seen next to nothing of the story, and are already claiming it's a stupid cliched story (completely wrong) and all sorts of other things. Honestly, either put some effort into it or just move on to games you like better.

I'm sure Sufyan will claim to be putting in real effort, but I am unconvinced. I don't think Sufyan WANTS to enjoy the game, I think he just wants to play farther in order to validate his complaints about the game, so we can no longer say he needs to play farther to really appreciate it. He's waiting for the twist to happen (there are more twists later, by the way, will he keep playing for those too?) so he can proudly proclaim that it's crap. Why put in so much effort just to deride it? Why is it so important to convince others that Outcast is bad?

In case I have these questions thrown back in my face, my own motivation is to share the great experience I had playing Outcast with others. I really loved the game, and I want others to experience it too, which is why I supported the Kickstarter and why I advocate for the game here. I understand that not everyone will like it, but I think a lot of people will, including some who may not have expected to.

P.S. -- While I was writing this, a new Kickstarter update was posted showing early WIP in-game footage. Both of you should feel free to post at length about how bad you think it looks. I think the new environments look great, personally.

EDIT: OK, I overreacted a bit. I apologize. I do hope Sufyan is able to enjoy the game.

DOUBLE EDIT: Now that both Sufyan and groze have responded, I feel like a real jerk. Please accept my apologies. I do hope both of you are able to enjoy the game.

I've added the link for the new video to the first post. It looks awesome btw! Finally something they can use for marketing!

Anyway as I've already said in my reply to groze's PM I appreciate good debates but by now it's really starting to get into the "thread derail" territory. Sufyan: if you don't have anything meaningful to say, don't say it. It's nice that you are trying to give the game another chance but it would be more contructive if you'd really do that instead of continously repeating how bad the game is. It's not bad and I'm confident you'll start seeing that in a few hours but give those few hours to the game instead of judging it early for a second time.

I suppose I overreacted earlier. Thanks for being more reasonable about it than me. I do hope that Sufyan ends up enjoying the game.

I like you but I didn't much like hearing speculation about myself. Sance231's ardent defense of the game actually did spur me to give the game a third or fourth chance. I want it to be good. I still remember playing the demo back in 1999 and reading all I could about it. I've given up so many times before, but hearing someone talking positively about concrete stuff (as opposed to just "best game ever everyone should play it") inspired me to see past the things that made me unable to get into the game before. I am trying to get into it, I'm not looking to confirm my suspicions or prove anyone wrong. This game has been in the back of my mind for over a decade, and I eventually bought it on GOG. I have plenty of reasons to want to learn to love this game. I don't have any reason or wish to hurt the game or put down it's fans, I'm in this topic as a direct result of the debate, where my perspective is that Outcast is a unique, fascinating and almost not of this world because of the way it was made and by whom. For better and for worse.

As for my attempt at a playthrough, I'm not exaggerating my hardships. Having waited so long, gotten so pumped up by user reviews and rose tinted memories of much easier times probably plays a big role in it. I am a very patient gamer, but for some reason Outcast gets my blood boiling. "Find the five McGuffins and then we will help you with your thing" -"Alright, seems you have me at a disadvantage, I have no choice but to accept what you're saying" WHAT!? You just woke up and haven't even left the room to get your bearings yet. What if your friends are just outside the village gates? You're a terrible soldier, Slade.

I know, I know, it's really petty but I can not stand the protagonist in this game. Every forced Americanism and joke around language gets my eyes rolling. I have made a new rule for my playthrough: If Cutter Slade ever mentions McDonalds or says he needs a SWAT team as part of a joke, I will rasafrackin uninstall and pretend this game does not exist. Name dropping The X-Files was too much for me, but I let it slip this one time. I feel guilt by association anytime a European opens his mouth about what he knows of Americans, especially those stuck in the 90's. Petty, yes, I am. I don't quite understand my hostility to the quirks of this game. I have very high standards for story telling in any medium, but I usually drop a game, book or movie if I feel things are not going to impress me or keep me interested. Outcast is coming at me the wrong way and boring me, yet I feel compelled to push on and play and think about it.

The only other game that has given me more grief and tormented my tiny mind for years after giving up on it is Fallout 3, the worst game people have ever praised. To me it is the Boondock Saints of games (though I actually enjoy Boondock Saints, despite knowing exactly why it is a bad movie).

Oh Outcast, why did I ever know ye? You ninja'd my brain almost 15 years ago. After that I would have lived unhappily in uncertainty had I never played you, and in great discomfort and sadness after I did. A remake is my only hope to end the torment.

I'm sorry if I somehow had a hand in derailing this thread. Like I said in the PM I sent Sance, it was never my intention to belittle Outcast fans or attack something they love.

I just wanted to understand why do people like and praise Outcast so much, because I can't enjoy it. I downloaded the game yesterday to give it yet another try, not to try and prove the fans' arguments wrong, but to genuinely give it a chance. Like Sufyan said, Sance's objective and specific points in defense of the game do much more for me than general, vague mentions of Outcast being "the best game ever made", and all that, and I'm really trying, yet again, to figure out the good things about this game.

I still cringe at the writing and the voice acting, I don't think that opinion of mine will change, no matter how long I play this game. Conversations go on forever, I spent fifteen minutes trying to squeeze all the information I could out of a talan. It's just too boring. If they had made the talan voices sound different from one another and split the huge walls of complicated and convoluted information between different NPCs instead of having it be delivered by only one or two of them, I think the game would have been much more approachable by newcomers. What strikes me as odd is that, at some point, every Outcast fan was a newcomer, and I can't understand what made people love this game so much, back then. What made you endure hours of broken gameplay (well, I guess it didn't seem that broken, at the time) and poor, unfunny writing, until the story started moving along? Because I've been playing for three or four hours, now, and that seems like a long time, to me, to wait for something to happen that'll make me go "a-ha! There we go, this is why I should like this game!" I'm sorry if my agreeing with Sufyan's Tintin analogy upset you, but four hours in this still looks like 'Tintin Américain: Stargate Adventures'.

What's so damn good about the story? This is an honest question, I'm not trying to be provocative. The game doesn't have me interested enough to find out for myself what that mind-shattering twist you mentioned is, so, please, without vague promises of twists in the story or assurance that "it will get better", I'm humbly asking that you spoil the game for me and tell me how, in what ways, exactly, does it get better? Is the twist really worth so many hours of sub-par gameplay, voice acting that makes my ears bleed and a script so badly written that my brain keeps telling me to facepalm hard? I want it to be good, trust me, but four hours is more than what I ever invested in a game I didn't enjoy, just because people I trust tell me it's good.

Overall, I think most of the GOG community has excellent taste in video games, so I've been following some recommendations in order to enjoy games that I missed while growing up. The only time it missed the mark completely was with Outcast. I bought this because it gets all the praise in the world from a very passionate niche cult fanbase, and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about, and, obviously, get a new classic game I could enjoy. But, alas!, every time I try to play it, I never understand what's so great about it, that makes so many fans love it. I already know that it was a precursor to open-world games, I'm aware that it has complex NPC AI, that it "did many groundbreaking things, for its time", I've heard all that, but what I really, really need to know is: what are the objective, concrete aspects of Outcast that should make me enjoy it? Because four hours in and it's still crap, sorry. And 4 hours is a very long time to give a game a chance, 4 hours is roughly half of Gabriel Knight.

Seems like you exaggerate the small things in a game and focus on those instead of the good stuff. :D I can relate to hating Fallout 3: as a super duper hardcore fan of the series I think of Fallout 3 as the desecration of Fallout but I still like it very much. The writing and the story itself is absymal, the game world lacks any kind of realistic logic or much thought put into it and all the content in the game is just a stupid rehash of the first two games wtihout any originality. The RPG system is ridiculous, real time combat is laughable even when compared to the most basic FPS game.

BUT: the absurdity of the game brings a great sense of humor to the whole experience, the exploration aspect is second to none and the game has a more distinct 50's style in its art design than the originals or New Vegas. So while I hate the lore, the story and simplicity of the RPG system I still enjoyed the game enough to put more than 100 hours into it.

As for Outcast, I never liked Cutter, he is just a summarization of the 80s and 90s action movie star cliches and a very bad one at that. Still, the overall experience of the game managed to won me over and I consider it one of the best things I've ever played. So my advice would be not to focus on what's bad but rather enjoy the hell out of the great things found in the game.