TL;DR: if you're on the fence, go read the book. It's good and short to boot.
I have to admit I've only seen part of a playthrough of /The Invicible/, but haven't played the game myself.
Still, as a general rule, I personally would (almost) always recommend starting with the book form before trying a visual adaption.
Having seen the visuals first will heavily influence your imagination and internal vision of the writing, which would deprive you of one of the greatest joys of reading. This book in particular paints some truly awesome mental pictures that I wouldn't want to have spoiled in any way.
Another reasoning goes that the experience that came first tends to "win out" regarding your perception of the material. To me at least, a book is somehow less polarizing than a movie or a game. It stands for itself, and oftentimes (as is the case with /The Invicible/) has been standing as a recognised work for decades; it doesn't need to prove itself and can be taken as an artistic expression more or less free from the kind of economic incentives that necessarily plague a larger production.
Any adaption comes with changes and, quite possibly, shortcomings that can be more or less individually tolerable. If you play the game and don't like it for the way it tells the story, its art style, a clunky UI or whatnot, you take that baggage with you to reading the book, or in the worst case even lose interest and forego doing so altogether. That would (arguably) be a much greater loss than the other way around.
Adaptions do have their advantages, mainly in creating an impressive audiovisual environment, which can evoke some very immediate emotions. But those themes have been chosen and interpreted by the adaptor and are not necessarily identical to the original author's intentions.
Condensation in adaption to a different medium generally comes at a loss of depth that IMHO makes it hard to re-experience the source material without bias, and thus encumbers its full appreciation; not least because even in the best case it forestalls the setting, and often the twists and the conclusion as well.
In the end I would argue that a book tends to give a humanistically richer experience. It gives ample time to fathom its themes, to reflect and interpret them without visual distractions. Adaptions of great works can be great in their own right, but not too many stand the test of time as well as the books that came before them, and in that light I myself prefer to keep that order.
I have to admit I've only seen part of a playthrough of /The Invicible/, but haven't played the game myself.
Still, as a general rule, I personally would (almost) always recommend starting with the book form before trying a visual adaption.
Having seen the visuals first will heavily influence your imagination and internal vision of the writing, which would deprive you of one of the greatest joys of reading. This book in particular paints some truly awesome mental pictures that I wouldn't want to have spoiled in any way.
Another reasoning goes that the experience that came first tends to "win out" regarding your perception of the material. To me at least, a book is somehow less polarizing than a movie or a game. It stands for itself, and oftentimes (as is the case with /The Invicible/) has been standing as a recognised work for decades; it doesn't need to prove itself and can be taken as an artistic expression more or less free from the kind of economic incentives that necessarily plague a larger production.
Any adaption comes with changes and, quite possibly, shortcomings that can be more or less individually tolerable. If you play the game and don't like it for the way it tells the story, its art style, a clunky UI or whatnot, you take that baggage with you to reading the book, or in the worst case even lose interest and forego doing so altogether. That would (arguably) be a much greater loss than the other way around.
Adaptions do have their advantages, mainly in creating an impressive audiovisual environment, which can evoke some very immediate emotions. But those themes have been chosen and interpreted by the adaptor and are not necessarily identical to the original author's intentions.
Condensation in adaption to a different medium generally comes at a loss of depth that IMHO makes it hard to re-experience the source material without bias, and thus encumbers its full appreciation; not least because even in the best case it forestalls the setting, and often the twists and the conclusion as well.
In the end I would argue that a book tends to give a humanistically richer experience. It gives ample time to fathom its themes, to reflect and interpret them without visual distractions. Adaptions of great works can be great in their own right, but not too many stand the test of time as well as the books that came before them, and in that light I myself prefer to keep that order.