Outlast DLC Whistleblower is a Prequel

Outlast DLC Whistleblower is a Prequel

Whistleblower sets the stage for the asylum's haunting.

The upcoming DLC for Outlast, the terrifying horror game best known for making Conan O'Brien pee his pants, will be a prequel called Whistleblower. The news comes shortly after developer Red Barrels announced plans to make DLC for the game earlier this week. Whistleblower will take place before Mount Massive, the abandoned asylum where the game takes place, was shut down.

While the details are still a little vague, players will take control of a new character, whose firsthand knowledge and records of the horrible experiments taking place at the facility lead the main game's protagonist, Miles Upshur, to investigate the facility. As the new character, players will explore new areas, meet new characters, and try to solve the mysteries of the asylum. According to developer Red Barrels, players will see instances of insanity and abuse that "may be a bit too close for comfort" for some players.

As of now, there is no set release date for Whistleblower. Outlast is available for currently available for PC, and in development for PS4.

Source: Polygon

Permalink

Probably for the best that there's no release date yet. If my playthrough of Amnesia: The Dark Descent is any indicator (And I think Outlast is scarier), then I've got at least another two years before I scream my way to the finish line of this one. Take your time, Red Barrels: I'll still be here...

Is it sad that the first thing I thought when I read: "may be a bit too close for comfort for some players" was "Oh god, what controversy will this create? Who's gonna get offended? Which Fox News reporter is gonna talk about how violent it is and how it will turn us all into psychotic murder machines?"

Are DLCs mandatory or something these days? Outlast was a very mediocre game, which went from basic horror flick to terrible sci-fi story. And the ending was horrible, suffering from Mass Effect syndrome. So what's up with the prequel?

AJey:
Are DLCs mandatory or something these days? Outlast was a very mediocre game, which went from basic horror flick to terrible sci-fi story. And the ending was horrible, suffering from Mass Effect syndrome. So what's up with the prequel?

Well most people found it very effective horror, and it was very successful. So, yeah, DLC was likely since people want more.

If it's as scary as the rest of Outlast, I'm looking forward to it.

purplemonkey555:
Is it sad that the first thing I thought when I read: "may be a bit too close for comfort for some players" was "Oh god, what controversy will this create? Who's gonna get offended? Which Fox News reporter is gonna talk about how violent it is and how it will turn us all into psychotic murder machines?"

Well the thing about Outlast is, well, it takes place in an insane asylum. The insanity is a given here. Abuse, however, I find interesting. Insane asylums are often poorly regulated shitholes that face no real penalty for the abuse and mistreatment of patients. Notice that the only time anyone gives an airborne rodent's rectum about the state of mental health facilities and their patients is after a massacre. It speaks volumes about what people general think of the mentally ill, and how little attention they often get. I kind of hope this does create a controversy. It may very well be a good thing. One line in Outlast neatly sums up my point: "Murkoff took so much from us, they used us ... because nobody cares about a few forgotten lunatics."

I will get this DLC, but only if they give me the option to remove the goddamn blur filter from the screen. I couldn't finish Outlast; hell, I had to drop it after about two hours because the blurriness (and the motion blur in particular) hurt my eyes to the point that I had to go to the doctor to prescribe me some eye-drops because opening my eyes in the next morning felt like someone was stabbing them with a really blunt knife. Wasn't fun. >:|

The last time something like that happened was when I played the new DMC game (I had to have three breaks during the nightclub part because of the flashing neon lights), but that wasn't even remotely close to the ocular torment Outlast dished out to my poor eyes... -.-'

Too bad the ending of Outlast was so awful that I couldn't care less about what came before it anymore.

Does this really need to be a DLC? Is there something stopping them from making it its own game? From my understanding Outlast was fairly popular, so I doubt many people would mind it. I suppose if it's cheaper and shorter then it could be justifiable DLC, like an expansion pack, but the phrase "Survival-horror with DLC" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Outlast actually has the option to disable motion blur, just a checkbox in the video settings page.

I'm totally getting this DLC. Outlast (or, at least, the first 90% of Outlast) is the scariest game I've played in a long time.

Mcoffey:

AJey:
Are DLCs mandatory or something these days? Outlast was a very mediocre game, which went from basic horror flick to terrible sci-fi story. And the ending was horrible, suffering from Mass Effect syndrome. So what's up with the prequel?

Well most people found it very effective horror, and it was very successful. So, yeah, DLC was likely since people want more.

I would need some compelling statistics on who those "most people" are to believe it. Most professionals I respect dont think it was a good game. And as a writer myself, I can tell you that it has been a while since I've seen a story so convoluted and broken. There's a very thin line between original and absurd, and the further game goes, the more absurd it gets, with all the supposed horror turning into horrible running sequences from given enemy. I can wholeheartedly respect you liking the game. But I will argue over its quality.

AJey:

Mcoffey:

AJey:
Are DLCs mandatory or something these days? Outlast was a very mediocre game, which went from basic horror flick to terrible sci-fi story. And the ending was horrible, suffering from Mass Effect syndrome. So what's up with the prequel?

Well most people found it very effective horror, and it was very successful. So, yeah, DLC was likely since people want more.

I would need some compelling statistics on who those "most people" are to believe it. Most professionals I respect dont think it was a good game. And as a writer myself, I can tell you that it has been a while since I've seen a story so convoluted and broken. There's a very thin line between original and absurd, and the further game goes, the more absurd it gets, with all the supposed horror turning into horrible running sequences from given enemy. I can wholeheartedly respect you liking the game. But I will argue over its quality.

Fair enough. I admit, cant say much for the story. I haven't gotten very far in; it freaks me out too much for extended play sessions. That's how I judge it as effective horror. As far as statistics go, it's got an 80% on Metacritic with an 8.5 User Score. Take that for what you will.

AJey:
Are DLCs mandatory or something these days? Outlast was a very mediocre game, which went from basic horror flick to terrible sci-fi story. And the ending was horrible, suffering from Mass Effect syndrome. So what's up with the prequel?

Well you see, it's quite simple.

The guys who made the game...made the prequel. Because they felt like it and because they could.

Seriously, what's the big surprise? You make it sound like we all got up, went down to their studio and said "WE WANT A PREQUEL"

This could be interesting, seeing how the whistleblower is eluded in the core game as being a basic I.T tech that happened to spy on some weird stuff. The DLC is basically going to inflate that "Hey Miles, Murkoff is at it again and it's creepy as fuck!" into a case of that guy actually getting a good, long look-see.

As far as the abuse goes, I don't mind. It's your typical Gothic Insane Asylum with the safety and medical standards of the actual Bethlem House in Great Britain. Which is to say, jack shit. Horror in any shape or form usually ends up playing in that particular sandbox. Bram Stoker did it, Lovecraft did it repeatedly, even DC Comics does it. Hugo Strange would fit right in with Bethlem's staff.

Seeing as Bethlem (aka Bedlam House, which gave us the synonym "Bedlam" for "insanity") was basically a dumping ground for untreated maniac-depressives and schizophrenics in the Regency and Victorian eras, abuse is kind of expected.

So when I saw a patient making the lovey-dovey to a headless corpse, I wasn't really fazed. The entire game spent most of its running time screaming its Gothic Horror roots in my face, to the point where I pretty much went "Oh, hey, look! Baseless depravity! Useless if Vaguely Creepy Reminder of Game's Nature Number 265!"

Ooh, do we get to play as Edward Snowden? Do you get chased through the building by John Mccain, Lindsey Graham, and Barrack Obama? That sounds pretty terrifying, if they do that I would buy it.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here