Ecstatica

Back in 1994, when people were still making good games, two programmers from Psygnosis (Alain Maindron and Andrew Spencer) made a game so bizarre and unusual that it was packed with controversy even before it was officialy released. You see, the actual game title was "Ečstatica" (you can easily see that if you look at the cover):

"Č" is a letter from Serbian (and Croatian) alphabet, and I'm not sure it appears anywhere else. Were those guys just joking, or it was a mistake, I have no idea. Anyway, you obviously have a game called "Ečstatica". Of course, the bizarreness only started there.

First of all, what is Ecstatica (we will ommit the "č" from now on) ? Well, it is something that can't be easily qualified. Probably the most accurate description would be that it is a parody on survival horror games. One problem with that definition is that survival horror didn't exist at that time. It started two years later, with Resident Evil. But, Ecstatica was inspired (NOT heavily inspired) by survival horror's grandparent - the legendary Alone In The Dark.

So, what is the game about? The plot is generic and involves a guy who ends up in a seemengly deserted Northern European village in 928 AD. The "seemingly deserted" means that there aren't many people there, but if you're looking for monsters - that's your kinda place. It appears that something horrible happened in the village - some dark spell was released, resulting in the village being overcrowded with monsters and generally not a very nice place to live. Your job is to beat (or run away from, whichever you prefer) the monsters, rescue a girl named Ecstatica (who's kind of responsible for the whole mess) and beat the chief monster. Sounds easy?

As long as story is concerned, they totally tried to stay away from one while making this game. Apart from the story written in the manual (you can find it easy on the Net), not only there aren't any plot twists, plot developments or anything even remotely related to plot, the game completely lacks even in dialogue. You will meet a few characters who will tell you a few words, mainly as hints for some puzzles, but talking is not what you're supposed to do in this game. Even worse, descriptions of the objects are not an option. So, you can look at something for two days not knowing what the hell it is. You may consider this fact as a downside, but I think it was a deliberate decision by two cunning gamemakers.

The similarities between this game and Alone In The Dark begin (and end) with sort of a Lovecraftian atmosphere, fixed camera angles and the fact that the characters are in 3D. What is different is (apart from the already established fact that Ecstatica is not trying to be a horror game) the following: 1) While Alone In The Dark was made using the 3D characers over 2D backgrounds, in Ecstatica everything is in 3D. 2) The characters were made using a revolutionary spheroid technique (not repeated since, if I recall correctly) resulting in a brilliantly smooth animation that completely rivals today's games. Of course, those nasty creators only used that great animation to add to the game's humour, but when you look at the way those characters move and fight, you simply can't believe the game was made more than 10 years ago. Compare with Alone In The Dark, where Edward Carnby walked like he swallowed a pogo stick. Ecstatica's animation achievement can be compared to what Prince of Persia did in 2D world a few years before.

Here is you finding a werewolf beating the crap out of someone:

As I mentioned, the spheroid technique was used to add to the game's humour. The characters have a totally cartoony appearance, especially the hero. It's hard not to laugh seeing him walking, looking around in fear or tripping over a stone. Even the fights are totally cartoonish. And the backgrounds are made in bright colours, in spite of the sinister spell that's taken over the village. During the fights there's very little blood, the character that loses the battle simply falls down (again, brilliantly animated). So, what we have here is a nice little game that all family can enjoy, right?

WRONG! In fact, Ecstatica is probably one of the most offensive games that ever appeared. Well, that is if you're (unlike me) easily offended. Probably the better description is that the game uses the weirdest black humor that some people will find totally inappropriate. First of all, there are some gruesome images of impaled naked people. Second, at one moment you will be chased by a nude fairy or something, and you'll have to beat her up. Third, at one moment you will be chased by a fat witch wanting to make sweet love to you. Then, at one point you will have to steal a relic from a monastery, resulting in you being attacked by the monks, resulting in them being killed by you. Also, you will meet a bear that drinks and breaks winds and in one of the most bizarre moments in the history of gaming, your character will for no obvious reason stop to pee by the side of a path. Those weird moments are supplemented by great humor throughout the game. You will have the opportunity to turn into various creatures during the game, accessing places you normally can't, you will ride a broom, wear such a heavy armour that you can't walk normally and will eventually fall and won't get up no matter how hard you try, and at the end, when you beat the final Demon, the hero will be so delighted that he'll start dancing. It's such a funny scene you have to see it. Some of the best parts of the game come when you are killed, when you have short animations of monsters making jokes.

There are various enemies throughout the game, a werewolf, a minotaur, a witch, some ugly small creatures, armours and other stuff. Even in "dark" dungeons, the game is well lit and retains the cartoonish feel, totally different from the gruesome scenes that occasionally happen. So basically, as mentioned before, Ecstatica is a parody of survival horror genre, the one that hadn't existed at the time that game was made. How nice is that?

However, the game actually makes fun even of regular adventure games (!). How come? Well, remember when you play an adventure game, and you have all sorts of weird items in your inventory and you think "Gee, where do I use THIS particular item?" and in the end it all falls in place, you find a place for every item and solve the game? Well, not here. First of all, the inventory doesn't even exist here. You can carry only two objects (one in each hand) and it is generally desirable to have a weapon at least in one hand. Also, the game totally shatters the established adventure concept that says "for every item there exists a place where that item is to be used". You will find many completely useless items that will only draw your attention the way, and if we remember that you can carry only two of them at the time, it's easy to see that you won't get anywhere if your playing philosophy is "find a place to use something I already have". Not to mention that the game often teases you - for example, you discover that you can climb through a fireplace, and you're excited about revealing a new location, only to find out that you end up on the roof and then falling down. When I played the game, I was stuck for days because I thought "Dammit, this key MUST be of use somewhere!". Then I got tired of that and thought "Hmmm, let's see how we can enter that monastery..." After that, I finished the game very soon and found out that most of those items that made me bang my head on the wall are nothing but red herrings. So, the game actually simulates the real-life situations - you have to think about your corrent goals and how to achieve them, not about the items in your inventory. Because, as in real life, they can be useless. This is a great, great concept, and I don't remember seeing it again after this game (kinda like the spheroid animation). Too bad.

Another objection people often make about this game is that it is rather short. That's true, but I don't think the length of the game should be considered when talking about the quality. It would be like a novel is better than a short story by default, just because it's longer.

To finally bring this long and boring review to an end, this game gets all the recommendation it can get. It is a completely forgotten gem. Try to find it somewhere and play it, you won't be disappointed. And after all, it is a shame to miss all those original feature that it brought into the gaming world.

I don't know what happened to Andrew Spencer and Alain Maindron later. It seems that Maindron has worked on Arx Fatalis, but that's about that. There's a sequel to this game, Ecstatica 2. I haven't played, but I don't think it's as good as this one. Not only they removed the "č" from the title, they also cleaned up the content, so there's no more violence, nudity, farting bear and similar things. Booooooriiiing! However, I will try to find that game and play it. Someday. Peace to you all.