Spyro, Crash… only one was missing. IS Sir Daniel Fortesque he certainly has no intention of making us wait. Sony's “trinity”, with the release of the remake of MediEvilwill be complete again, but the real question is whether it will live up to its name. We have already judged Crash for some time and the result has been satisfactory, Spyro is racing around the Dragon Beaches these days on our consoles; but Will the return of our skeletal knight stand up to comparison with his companions, and above all, with himself of twenty years ago?
Let's start by talking about why MediEvil it is so important and why people fear for his return. Looking back today, there are many titles that have been inspired by MediEvil, and that we completely ignore. Did you just die in Lordran? Have you broken controller on controller because, surrounded by enemies, your shield has run out of durability? And do you think Dark Souls came up with this out of the blue? No, sorry to spoil your dreams, but good Miyazaki was largely inspired by MediEvil, forging a similar work with the capabilities that the technology of 2011 allowed him. But for those who know both titles it was impossible not to notice the similarities, and how much one was influenced by the other, even in the structure of the maps or weapons. This is the importance of MediEvil, and if today we say that a game is a "Souls like" we must not forget that in turn Dark Souls is a "MediEvil like".
After discussing the reasons that make MediEvil a milestone for those who haven't had a chance to try it, let's consider what are the elements and characteristics that Sir Daniel must absolutely maintain in his return. What is it that has intrigued young and old from the first minutes of the game? Let's go in order: we are in 1998 and the first generation of Sony has entered the world of consoles with a straight leg; if we were to identify two elements that have characterized all the games that appeared on the PlayStation, these would certainly be 3D and graphics, closely linked to each other. But let's go deeper into the question. If we think of the cult games of the first PlayStation we can easily see how each of them was characterized by graphics that distinguish it from the others even today. A quick glance at a splash art, a character or a setting was enough to immediately deduce which game it belonged to, even without ever having tried it. I remember well that when a new game came out and you saw the first images in magazines or other references like "it looks like a world of Spyro", "it's a Crash character" and the like. And MediEvil was absolutely no exception, although there was a difference.
MediEvil covered the "dark side" of the games of the time, an action-platform with decidedly darker tones despite being within the reach of almost everyone in terms of content and playability, it relied on dark settings, gloomy music and themes typical of British Gothic, placed in antithesis with the irony of the proposed jokes and the awkwardness of our bony hero. Thanks to the characteristic graphics we talked about above, all this formed a unique, intriguing, mysterious and fun atmosphere, which was appreciated in every detail. Going slightly personal, I still remember when I first walked through THAT graveyard, and all the memories that followed. And I remember it precisely because I had never seen anything like it, no game looked even vaguely similar, neither in graphics nor in gameplay.
E it is not just the graphics that have made MediEvil the masterpiece it is and has remained until now. I know well that I am making many references to other works of the period to deal with a single one, but after all this was the trend of the time: each game had characters characterized at the maximum capacity of the time. Not only our protagonist, but also antagonists and secondary characters that make up the world around us are best rendered, in order to create a feeling of complete immersion within a universe, following the story of our hero. And if that wasn't enough, each title had its own game mechanics. Although all of them were action-based platformers, each of them had very distinct and different mechanics from the others, since the gameplay was a fundamental part of the identity of the game.
Let's get to the point: Why does the return of MediEvil, like those of Crash and Spyro, arouse more fear than happiness? Because, as they say, “things are beautiful precisely because they end”, and like them too MediEvil remains beautiful as it relates to an idea of the past, to an amazing memory of those years. And you remember it with a smile. But if this were to come back today, and it did so in an unsatisfactory way, our memories of it could be permanently altered, staining for life an emotion that until then had remained pure. MediEvil, if he really has to come back, it must not vary by a comma, because otherwise it would be another game and not him anymore. The only changes accepted will be smoother animations and a new graphic quality, because the tones and appearance must remain absolutely unchanged. Unfortunately this is the case, and as it was for Crash and Spyro, there is no compromise on unwanted mutations designed by the developers for the sake of betting on the success of new ideas introduced in old games. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that, certain emotions are beautiful because they end and because they remain in the past, in the memory of some dreaming children who just needed to have a controller in hand to feel fully armed knights.
