Anchorhead

This review is all about the 2018 version, and how it feels to experience it very many years after the original. I would have rated it 4. But since this rating goes to the page of "Anchorhead" without making any distinctions between original or revision, I rate it 5 - because that's what I rate the original.

There is very little left to say about Anchorhead these days. It was a masterpiece; and it still is. If some want to point at its flaws, which I can't think of any, I'll gladly acknowledge them and argue that they don't come close to diminishing the greatness of the whole.

My experience with Anchorhead was always, funnily enough, reminiscent of Sierra, who never did Lovecraftian horror. Anchorhead reminded me, and still does, very heavily of Phantasmagoria. There is no need to list the similarities. They are simply enough for any player familiar with the Sierra game to have some deja vu here and there.

And here's the funny thing: playing the revision very much reminded me of playing the remake of Gabriel Knight 1, one of my favourite games ever ever ever. It was ok, I appreciate the makeover, but I prefer the original; but I can recommend both without hesitation.

So! This revision of Anchorhead is really something. The prose has been reviewed, some puzzles have been slightly altered to become more natural and seamless (mind you, we're still talking about a game with a character whose trenchcoat pockets are botomless pits, and who still manages to carry a styrofoam cup of cold goo-that-was-once-coffee for days without spilling). What most will immediately notice is, of course, the illustrations.

Oh, but they are perfect. They are extraordinary. They are _op_presive, they are _ex_pressive, they are vaguely alien. It's so rare when you see images of something that has for years been in your mind and imagination. It's a tall order; they have a lot to measure up to. In my case, I viewed them and invariably went "Yes! Yes, by God, that is exactly what that is!" It was like meeting, face to face, someone with whom you'd been corresponding for years, but never actually met or shared photos with.

...which, in this day and age, probably sounds even more unbelievable than Lovecraft's mythos. It's in subtle ways like this that the world reminds you it has changed.

At any rate, the illustrations are excellent. The prose feels natural. I couldn't identify all of the changes, but the ones that I could, I could understand the reasoning behind. They were definitely good changes. The experience of Anchorhead remains the same; the investigative thrill of the second day is undiminished.

So... why four stars? Why do I prefer the original? Why, indeed, did I actually stop playing partway through the third day?

For starters, a lot of that has to do with the fact that I'd played the original many years ago, and remembered very very broad strokes. How much? Enough to actively interfere with my enjoyment, actually. I was always acutely aware of certain key locations or events, so I was rather watching out for them. Also certain puzzles or objects. When I didn't see them, I became confused and worried because either, a) I misremembered, b) it was changed for this version, or c) I missed something.

c) is the one that really gets me. Missing something can derail the experience in any game. This actually happened to me on the playthrough; more on that later. For now, let's just say that my vague memories of the past actively interfered with my present experience. Really got in the way.

Let me say here and now that, if you are not a player to whom this sort of thing happens; if you can just disregard whatever experiences you had, if you played it before, and just go into it anew; then by all means, get this version. Don't wait, don't hesitate. It's totally worth it.

Moving on. That was something that interfered, and I actively had to work past. Always afraid I was missing something.

What ultimately put me off the game was a combination of two things in this version plus the unfortunate incident in which I missed something which I absolutely had not missed in any previous playthrough of mine. It was entirely my fault; but the resulting break in narrative energy, as I left one goal to pursue another entirely different, was jarring.

Let me address this for a second, actually. This is not, I think, unique to this version. I'm sure the original also had it; it's just that I didn't miss it then. So it's definitely an Anchorhead thing. Now, some authors prefer to allow this to happen, in the condition that the player doesn't get into a walking dead and is able to return, without needing to restore a saved game, and prod elsewhere to solve another puzzle to continue. This possibly feels more natural in more "game"-type games than "narrative"-type games, where the momentum of narrative can be powerful, and the author will allow it to be suddenly interrupted at their own peril since it can really take a player out of the whole experience.

An alternative which some authors choose is to simply railroad things a little bit more: the event with momentum simply doesn't trigger until you've solved the previous puzzle. The result is more linear (fine with me, personally, but many feel differently) and that does mean, if you can't solve one puzzle, you can't turn to another while you mull it over.

Having identified this, there is nothing meaningful to actually say about Anchorhead, except that: in one situation at least (in the (Spoiler - click to show)third day), the author chose the former. And that is all there is to it; nothing wrong with either.

...personally, for me a lot of the momentum that started (Spoiler - click to show) when I first enter the side path in the woods and which doesn't end until I escape from the sewers under the bridge, which is a very narrative moment from which you emerge with new goals which you can't do anything about until you've solved a previous puzzle... broke very badly when I realised, thanks to hints, what I should have done before instead. The game was not unwinnable, but the hints were telling me I should channel my energy elsewhere.

Actually, if the game had signalled to me that I should be channeling my energy elsewhere, I'm sure I would still have momentum going. Getting external hints always, always breaks my experiences.

At any rate. Everything that I said was only an issue because I missed a bit. It's my fault. Why did I miss that bit? Because my memory was interfering - and stupidly, this particular puzzle hadn't changed, but my faulty memory had told me that a certain location was unremarkable, so I only did a cursory examination of it and then moved on. I would never have gone back to that location without prompting from the hints.

Again; if you have played the game before and are able to work past this type of thing, get the game. Play it. Live it.

That was my problem. The other two things were a matter of preference, but by the time I got to them, I was really feeling that, overall, "this revision is nice, but I kinda preferred the original."

The first is a matter of exposition. In the original, there was a snippet of information that was explicitly given to you at a certain point ((Spoiler - click to show)the fact that Edward Verlac murdered his wife and daughter); in the revision, this is not made explicit but is alluded to when you enter a location, or examine an object.

I appreciate the change, but I don't think it worked. Now, when I saw the PC refer to that event and a particular person's name in that event, I went "huh? What? Should I have known about this? She's talking as though we were familiar with it, but this is the first I've heard this name. It's all been vague so far, what's with the sudden specificity?" I actually loaded the original to figure out why it felt so weird, which is when I realised that this was an artistic change.

I think it's clear that this particular change didn't resonate with me, but I appreciate it and it's an interesting one. Clearly along the lines of "explicitly tell less, allow the player to find out more". A good goal.

The second thing is a revision of a puzzle. (Spoiler - click to show)The wine bottles puzzle has become the mural puzzle. It is another revision that makes a lot of sense, makes the game less game-y and more narrative. Really really good. I love it in concept. In execution, however, it had a problem for me...

Let's try and talk about it without being spoilery. It's a certain sequence, and you are specifically told about how many entries are in that sequence. Let's say it's X. You need to do something to X things in the right order. In the original, there were exactly X things to interact with. In the revision, there are many more, but you know the sequence is still X.

The thing that tripped me: in the revision, when I consulted my notes, I found that I had, to work with, to figure out a sequence, X+1 entries. So the first entry of ther sequence would either be X or X+1. If I'm being too cryptic: (Spoiler - click to show)I thought that the sequence started with Wilhelm and ended with Edward.

So I started my sequence at the wrong place. But that's because, for the first entrsy in the sequence, I didn't have the necessary information! (or so I thought. Turned out that was the puzzle) So I input what I had, what I thought was right.

You know that feeling when you really don't know why your puzzle solution doesn't work, even though you double-checked it and triple-checked and it makes perfect sense and by rights it totally should work?

Yeah, it's not good, is it? And the funny thing is, I think this revised puzzle is superior. It's just that... well, personally, I would have like to have been better clued. Personally, I would have suggested that the game, if the player enters the wrong plausible solution ((Spoiler - click to show)ending at Edward instead of Mordecai) the game could print text along the lines of (Spoiler - click to show)"How strange, you were certain this would work. But then, you do clearly remember that there were 5 constellations glowing when Michael open up this mural, whereas what you just tried only lit up four because you had to count one of them twice. Maybe you need to think about this some more.). This revision actually seems to have moved away from such things, preferring to let the player draw their own conclusions. It's an authorial choice, which I respect even if I find that, in these cases, it hinders my enjoyment more than enhances it.

So, at this point, narrative momentum already broken, I personally went "This is quite excellent, really, but I preferred the original." (Spoiler - click to show)The original specifically gave me a number of bottles to manipulate; I just needed to find out the order.

So that's that. This revision is excellent. So was the Gabriel Knight remake. But, what can I say, I still the prefer the original, warts and all.

PS - Oh, I just remembered, the original had Inform menus for reading at least one book... it was infinitely more convenient than the way this revised edition does it, which is individually "look up X in Y". Now I remember why this didn't bother me before; it wasn't there before. Another reason for me to prefer the original.