Bloody Hell, Mulder! Unearthing The X-Files: Resist or Serve and the Lost Art of the 'Proper' Tie-In Game
AI Gaming News Author · Eurogamer ·
Jeff unearths *The X-Files: Resist or Serve*, a surprisingly decent 2004 PS2 survival horror tie-in, lamenting its fixed cameras, dual campaigns, and genuine voice acting as a lost art in an era dominated by cosmetic crossovers and cynical cash grabs. It's a charming, if imperfect, reminder that licensed games once actually *tried* to deliver a meaningful experience for fans.
Right, so you know that feeling when you're rummaging through some forgotten digital archive, accidentally brush against a dusty old floppy disk, and suddenly a forgotten gem of gaming history just… *flickers* into existence? Like you’ve just performed a rudimentary summoning spell, but instead of a demon, you get a blast from the past. That’s precisely the vibe I got when Eurogamer’s Connor Makar recently dug into *The X-Files: Resist or Serve* – a PlayStation 2 survival horror from 2004 that, fair dinkum, feels like it beamed in from an alternate dimension where licensed games actually *tried*.
(Original reporting by Connor Makar for Eurogamer)
Cast your minds back to 2004, mate. We were all just wrapping our heads around this 'Facebook' thing, and whispers of a revolutionary handheld called the Nintendo DS were dancing on the wind. The gaming landscape was shifting, but one thing remained a constant: the alluring, often disappointing, promise of the tie-in game. For every *GoldenEye 007*, there were a dozen *E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial* sized craters in our gaming hopes. So, when a game like *The X-Files: Resist or Serve* landed, bringing with it the beloved paranormal investigators Mulder and Scully, you’d be forgiven for approaching it with a healthy dose of that classic X-Files skepticism.
But here’s the kicker, and what Makar’s piece so brilliantly reminds us of: *Resist or Serve* wasn't just some slapped-together cash-grab. Black Ops Entertainment, the same clever chaps who gave us *Treasures of the Deep* and a few Bond games (talk about a varied portfolio!), genuinely had a proper go at it. They delivered a bona fide survival horror experience, complete with all the spooky trimmings. We’re talking fixed camera angles – yes, those wonderfully cinematic, sometimes infuriating, relics of a bygone era – big, sprawling levels ripe for exploration and scavenging, and a pervasive sense of dread that clung to you like a particularly persistent conspiracy theory.
What truly elevates *Resist or Serve* beyond the usual licensed fare, though, is its ambition. Instead of a single, generic campaign, players got two distinct narratives, one for Mulder and one for Scully. Each campaign offered a different perspective on the unfolding paranormal events, playing to the strengths of the respective agents. Scully, with her scientific mind, might approach situations differently to Mulder’s gut-instinct, alien-chasing bravado. It added a layer of replayability and narrative depth that, honestly, you just didn’t expect from a tie-in. It’s like casting a minor illusion spell, and it suddenly manifests as a fully-fledged dragon – a pleasant, if slightly overwhelming, surprise.
And let’s not forget the voice acting. Get this: Gillian Anderson *and* David Duchovny – the actual Mulder and Scully – lent their voices to the game! This wasn't some cheap sound-alike job; this was the real deal. In an age where even major AAA titles sometimes struggle to get their principal actors, having the original duo commit to a full game's worth of dialogue was practically miraculous. It instantly grounded the experience in the show's lore, making it feel less like a spin-off and more like a lost season, albeit one you had to violently kick enemies in.
Ah, yes, the kicking. Makar mentions the game’s notorious difficulty, particularly the tankiness of both bosses and regular enemies. Resource management was paramount, and bullets were a precious commodity. So, what do you do when ammo is scarce and the monsters just won’t stay down? You kick 'em, mate. A lot. Apparently, unloading a few shots and then 'busting the boots out' to repeatedly pummel downed foes was a legitimate, nay, *essential* strategy. It sounds ridiculously silly, but it perfectly encapsulates the desperate, resourceful nature of classic survival horror.
Now, for all its charm and genuine effort, *Resist or Serve* wasn't exactly a critical darling at the time. It landed with middling reviews, with some critics, like former IGN founder Doug Perry, giving it a respectable but not groundbreaking 6.7. They saw it for what it was: a decent-enough adventure for fans. But what they (and perhaps we, the gaming public) didn't fully grasp then was that games like *Resist or Serve* – these lovingly crafted, full-fledged tie-ins – were a dying breed. The industry was on the cusp of a seismic shift, largely thanks to the industry-shaking success of *Resident Evil 4*, which pivoted horror towards action. This indirectly spelled doom for the more traditional, resource-starved survival horror, and by extension, this particular flavour of licensed game.
Soon, tie-in games would devolve into cheaper, less impactful endeavours. We waved goodbye to the likes of *The Thing*, *The Warriors*, and *Matrix: Path of Neo*, games that understood their source material and carved out a respectable niche in their respective genres. In their place came… well, *Man vs. Wild* on the Xbox 360. And *Thor: God of Thunder*. Bloody hell, the suffering. Eventually, this whole category largely fell by the wayside. And, honestly, who cried for *Thor: God of Thunder*? Not many, I reckon. But in that mass extinction event, the genuinely good, tailored experiences like *Resist or Serve* perished too.
Today, if you’re a massive fan of, say, the latest sci-fi TV sensation, *Alien Earth* (totally made that up, don't go looking), what are your options for a game? A forgettable mobile title, perhaps? Maybe a fleeting *Warzone* cosmetic skin? Is David Duchovny going to spend days in a voice booth recording lines for a limited-time live service crossover? Probably not, pal. Modern multimedia crossovers are, as Makar astutely points out, often about the *aesthetics* of fandom. They're about letting people show off how much they like a brand by slapping its flair onto their digital presence, rather than actually immersing them in a substantively new, interactive story.
And this is where my gentle skepticism really kicks in. While I appreciate a good cosmetic as much as the next digital wizard, there’s a distinct difference between displaying your fandom and actually *experiencing* it. *The X-Files: Resist or Serve* wasn't perfect, no. But it wasn't a cynical cash grab either. It was a proper attempt to create a game *for* X-Files fans, to make them feel like they were part of an authentic new chapter in the saga. It understood that a real effort, however flawed, is what fans truly desire. It found a home within the wider survival horror genre, attempting to be both fan service and a legitimate entry in gaming.
So, while I'm not telling everyone to bust out their old PS2 or fire up an emulator for *Resist or Serve* as some hidden masterpiece, it's certainly a decent bit of fun and, more importantly, a crucial window into a gaming age that’s long gone. It reminds us of a time when game developers and licensed IPs aimed for more than just fleeting engagement or a quick buck. It tried to create something substantial, something spooky, and something that genuinely added to the narrative. And in an industry often chasing the latest trend, that kind of dedicated, creative effort is a concept I reckon we should keep looking for, even if it feels like searching for a UFO in a digital haystack. Who knows what wonders we might accidentally summon next, eh?
Tags: Gaming History, Survival Horror, Licensed Games, Retro Gaming, Industry Trends
Original article: Eurogamer