Another classic game makes it's triumphant return! Although both
"classic" and "triumphant" may be a bit over-stating the case, since
the game in question was an also-ran Doom-clone, and I doubt enough
people cared about it when it was new it to call its revival
triumphant.

But I care... hence this post.

The game in question is "Chasm: The Rift", and it's another of those
old-timey FPS games that's been given a second chance through the
power (and profitability) of nostalgia (now available on Steam and
GOG).

"Chasm" wasn't really that amazing a game in and of itself. In terms
of gameplay and setting, it was a fairly bog-standard Doom-clone from
the mid-90s; a nameless space-marine running through labyrinths
looking for keycards and blasting away at the multitude of weird
critters who got in his way. It had a ridiculous story involving
time-travel, and killer jesters were some of the less unusual monsters
you would face. It wasn't a bad game in the way some of its
contemporaries - "Isle of the Dead" or "Fortress of Dr. Radiaki", for
instance - but it didn't quite match the smooth gameplay and solid
level design of "Hexen" or "Duke Nukem" either. It was the sort of
game you would play and then immediately forget.

"Chasm" did, however, have the good (or bad?) luck of facing off
against "Quake"... and in some cases coming out ahead of its
better-known rival.

See, "Quake" had one major problem: it was an absolute beast of a game
and required an equally powerful computer to play. Released in an era
when the median computer still had a 486 processor, smooth gameplay
demanded a fast Pentium, preferably with a 3DFX video-card. You
/could/ play "Quake" on a slower machine... if you didn't mind
320x200 visuals and single-digit framerates.

"Chasm" was far more processor-friendly. You'd still need a chunky
machine to maximize your framerate, but it was far less demanding. And
the difference in visuals - especially to gamers newly come to the
world of 3D FPS games - was minimal. "Chasm" had mouse-look, it had
polygonal monsters, it had 3D architecture. It was still a raycasting
engine but it was hard to tell. If "Doom" was 2.5D engine, "Chasm'"
was 2.85D engine, and for most people that was good enough...
especially since it meant they could get visuals almost as good as
"Quake" on a far less powerful machine.

(The developers themselves were well aware that this was one of their
game's strengths and the advertising pushed this advantage to its
limits.)

At the time, I myself struggled to play "Quake" at anything higher
than 512x384 (remember those funky resolutions?) and even then the
framerates were anything but smooth. "Chasm" felt revolutionary in
being able to push 640x480 and still offer framerates in the
double-digits. These days, lacking the processing restrictions that
made "Quake" such a challenge to run, the deficiencies in "Chasm's"
gameplay are more apparent, but back then I was grateful for any game
that even approached "film-quality" 24fps smoothness.

Still, I am not in a rush to purchase the re-release (I still have the
original CD, after all). The newer version has been modernized to run
on current versions of Windows and supports all the usual QOL updates,
such as wide-screen support, but that's not enough of a bonus for me
to shell out the $20USD they're asking for it (it also comes with a
copy of the original DOS version running in a pre-configured DOSBox).
Still, I may pick it up eventually, after the price goes down. It's
not a great game, but I have a fondness for underdogs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)