Need something to do when everybody is out enjoying Easter? Then I have good news for you, because Sony just added two classic games to PlayStation Plus, including the PlayStation 2 kaiju fighting game War of the Monsters and the survival horror scare-fest Alone in the Dark: One-Eyed Jack's Revenge. Okay, so maybe Sony forgot the Easter theme, but I still need to ask: Are either of these games worth playing? To answer that question, I decided to flip through the pages of Electronic Gaming Monthly, Computer & Video Games, Next Generation and more classic magazines to see what the critics said back when these games first came out. Get ready to huddle in the corner, because this is going to be an extremely destructive episode of PS Plus Review Crew.


Years before Capcom introduced us to Jill, the “master of unlocking,” we saw Alone in the Dark laying down the groundwork for where the survival horror genre would go in the 1990s. While the series didn't have much of a console footprint at the time, I*Motion was ready to take full advantage of the burgeoning horror trend by bringing Alone in the Dark 2 to both the PlayStation and Saturn. Complete with improved textures and brand-new cinemas, these updated ports were released at what seemed like the perfect time, just a few months after PlayStation gamers got a taste of Resident Evil. They also decided to drop the “party 2” and add a subtitle, turning the game into either One-Eyed Jack's Revenge or Jack is Back, depending on where you lived. The critics fell in love with the original Resident Evil game, but were they as smitten with this renamed Alone in the Dark sequel?

Despite this being a show about the PlayStation Plus, there simply weren't that many English-language magazines that reviewed the PlayStation version of Alone in the Dark 2. Perhaps because the magazines had just come off of reviewing Resident Evil on the PlayStation, they decided to throw a bone to the Saturn. That's speculation, because all I know is that we have seven reviews to talk about, and only one of them is reviewing the PlayStation version.

Let's start with Electronic Gaming Monthly, who gave the Saturn port a low score of 4.25 out of 10. Dan called the game a “disaster” and gave it a 3: “Where should I start? It's extremely hard to control. The graphics are choppy. The movement is sluggish. Aiming your weapons is a very difficult thing to do. The constantly changing viewing angles frustrates the hell out of me. You can tell that the different angles were used to impress the player with multiple views of the same locations, but it only made the game more difficult to deal with. With all these cons going against the game, how can anybody have fun? Alone in the Dark was hard, and the sad thing is, I don't know if it was due to the poor programming or the game design.” Sushi-X pushed back a little bit, but not even he was all that impressed: “The Saturn version adds the much-needed speed and faster control that the 3DO release never had. Although it is not altogether good, the game is at least fair to give the player a chance while searching and fighting in strange surroundings. The story may confuse players at first due to the many plot elements that don't fit with each other. Persistence is the key to advance.”

Unsurprisingly, EGM's low score puts them at the bottom of the pack. However, don't get too excited, because Game Fan gave it roughly the same low score, going with an average of 49%. Mean Machines Sega went a tiny bit higher, giving Jack a 52%, while the Sega Saturn Magazine went with a 54%. For our next stop, I want to focus in on Next Generation, who gave it a nice middle-of-the-road 3 out of 5. “Alone in the Dark was the pioneer of using 3D characters on a 2D background, and for the Saturn version, the designers have made some attempts at updating the looks by texture mapping the flat-shaded polygon models of the original. However, the net effect of this is to just call attention to how far recent efforts like Resident Evil have passed the series by. Alone in the Dark, however, still manages to hold up fairly well on its own. The game is huge, and the graphics, while relying on hand-drawn backgrounds instead of the latest, trendy pre-rendered variety, still look good.”

For what it's worth, there were magazines that genuinely enjoyed Alone in the Dark 2. Sega Power, for example, went all the way up to an 88%. That's actually the highest score of any English-language magazines at the time. Computer & Video Games gave it an 80%, which may not be the top score, but it is the one and only magazine to review the PlayStation version, so we have to highlight it. Rob Bright argued that “my usual aversion to RPGs has been considerably assuaged by Alone in the Dark. This is thanks in the most part to the inventive storyline and visual excellence of the game. While the use of cinematic editing seems a bit confusing at first and can actually prove frustrating when you are fighting someone, it goes a long way to invoke a noiristic atmosphere to the game. OK, so Resident Evil is going to make it look second best, but as far as RPGs go, Alone in the Dark offers some truly illuminating moments.”

Look, I can accept that somebody out there loves Alone in the Dark 2 on the PlayStation, but calling it a role-playing game? That's like GamePro calling Time Gal a point and click adventure. Back to the game at hand, One-Eyed Jack's Revenge ended up averaging a so-so 61% across seven different magazines. In case you were wondering, that's lower than Resident Evil. But you already knew that.

From the moment King Kong fought Godzilla in Ishiro Honda's classic 1962 kaiju film, one thing was painfully clear – big monsters fighting other big monsters is AWESOME! It's a formula that Toho used to pump out dozens of monster movies starring Godzilla, Ultraman and even Frankenstein. These kaiju fights would eventually spill over into the arcade, not only with Midway's insanely addictive game Rampage, but also two King of the Monsters fighting games from SNK. It's one of those irresistible concepts, so of course Sony took a chance on the oversized beasts when they published War of the Monsters in 2003. Coming from Incognito, they hoped that kaiju monsters fighting it out would have the same kind of appeal as the company's previous title – Twisted Metal Black. That's a tall order. Let's see what the critics said in 2003.

Over at Electronic Gaming Monthly, the editors couldn't agree. Two of the editors were underwhelmed, while the third critic had fallen head over heels in love with War of the Monsters. Demian was one of the critics who was disappointed: “I'm a sucker for games featuring giant robots. Add giant monsters to the mix, and I'm pretty much freaking out. War of the Monsters does a great job of mimicking the whole sci-fi B-move feel, but as an action/fighting game, it's not as deep or compelling as I was hoping for. The massive, destructible environments are a strong point, but the single-player game gets repetitive after a few hours. And why not co-op mode? With a room full of friends, War of the Monsters can be a blast; if you're home alone, watch an old Godzilla movie instead.” John strongly disagreed, giving the game a 9.5: I defy anyone, whether they care about big monsters or not, to pick this game up and not experience two things. First, they'll develop rudimentary skills within about a minute or two of playing, and second, they'll have an enormous amount of fun. The two-player duels are a blast, but the real meat of the game is the single-player quest. Select your monster and battle your way through the kitschy, 50s-style B-movie tale as you take on mutant insects, giant robots and, ultimately, a pulsating alien brain with tentacles.”

If you think EGM's 7.7 is bad, wait until you get a load of Game Informer's review. Going as low as a 6 out of 10, Chet did not hold back: “War of the Monsters is more about appearance than substance, and lacks almost any satisfying taste. The root of the problem is gameplay balance and enemy AI. Foremost, the unblockable attacks are just downright unfair. Furthermore, the lazy camera produces numerous blind spots throughout a battle; enough so that you constantly come to except unavoidable attacks from out of nowhere. I particularly dislike getting thrown across the city by an enemy only to be pummeled by his projectile attack simply because the camera won't turn quickly enough. For most gamers, War of the Monsters will come as a bit of a disappointment, hardly worth anything more than a rental. However, if you really love Destroy All Monsters Melee, you'll probably enjoy this title's ambition – just don't expect it to be more enjoyable.”

Now that we've looked at the negative reviews, let's make our way back up the scale. GamePro ended up liking the game enough to give it a solid 4 out of 5. That's right in line with the 8.5 out of 10 we saw from PSX Extreme. However, it's GMR who ended up giving War of the Monsters the highest score – 9 out of 10. “War of the Monsters earns its keep with an unbeatable War of the Worlds atmosphere and one of the most fun multiplayer games around. Could the game use some polish in the features department? Yes. But don't let that stop you from trying one of the most impressive brawlers ever made. Smash, brothers.”

As a fighting game, I agree, War of the Monsters has some issues. There's a reason why this isn't one of the top games at fighting tournaments. That said, I've always had a real soft spot for this game. I like the tone and the monsters, and part of me wishes that Sony would give the series a second shot. Take in the criticism and use today's technology to create something truly special. Between Legendary's Monsterverse and the success of Godzilla: Minus One, kaiju fighting is hot again. Now is your chance, Sony. Give the people what they want.