A few of you are quote mining to get angry at them and maybe ignoring other parts of the article. Or maybe some of you don't give a toss and react to a part of the article that matches up with your image of TCR.

Is their attitude not to your liking? Is their thoughts on why people didn't like it rubbing you in a bad way? Normal. That's acceptable. Still doesn't make them entirely wrong. People DID play TDD like a Haunted Attraction. Come Bob, come Sally, come Johnny, come everyone else, stand behind me while I ignore notes and go through all the scares so we can have some fun!

Yes, AMFP got rid of a few features and there were legitimate storytelling and mechanical reasons for them. Yes, it's not ''as scary'' as TDD (mostly because it's focused in another type of fear). Yes their reaction has sometimes been misguided (which i've spoken of in detail and will not regurgitate my thoughts on it). Why are people so violently angry at them? Why all the sheer amount of hatred towards them? Before they reacted mind you. They reacted because of how the fanbase reacted to AMFP. So I guess everyone should be even by now but nope.avy

They were spot on a few times in this article, which I will now number:

1. [There are still people who write about Dear Esther and say: 'I wish I could love it, but it's not a game.' Well you think: 'Well you're just a fucking idiot then, aren't you?' because actually if you have to call it a name before you decide whether you like it or not, you've got a weird kind of hangup."]
As brashly and bluntly as it was said, Dan's right. Some people are oddly more interested in trying to classify certain games instead of enjoying them. I understand the importance of classifications, but never did I ever let it affect my enjoyment of something. This doesn't have much to do with AMFP (even though the LOL NOT A GAME comments also exist for this) but I feel it bears mentioning. Curry also made reference to this in her first reaction piece.

2.["Just before the game went live," Dan continues, "We got an email from Thomas Grip [of Frictional Games]. 'What you've got to remember, if you get flak, is that you are being compared to a game that never existed. And there were these problems and these problems and we were proud of this … But you will get compared to the memory of a game that's three years old. And that's impossible. You will never measure up to that. If things don't go brilliantly, just remember that.' Which is a really nice email to send. We've been watching the Frictional forums, with people going 'It should have done this like Dark Descent did it', and then people write back and then go, 'Dark Descent didn't do that. And actually there is stuff in there going 'and it was just this and it was just this' …There almost were two Dark Descents."]

People DID attribute things that TDD didn't have or over credit its accomplishments. Main example? Sanity system. People have this idea of TDD being this game in their minds and how it did that and this and look at those mechanics and even the most ardent fans of TDD (which I don't consider myself, for those keeping score) would react saying ''wait...did the sanity system get patched or what"?

3. ["We wanted to make a horror game," Pinchbeck explains. "There was a distinction in our mind between making a horror game and making a game with jump scares in it. They're not the same. And we really shared that in the early conversations with Frictional as well - they were really anti-jump scares. That's not horror - that's just jump scares. So making a game that would get under people's skin in quite a deep level … What's interesting is a game that scares you while you are playing it, and what's really interesting is a game that scares you after you've finished playing it."]

[I say I was terrified of the Dark Descent. I played 10 minutes of it and then shut myself in an in-game cupboard. I made friends with a broom for a while before quitting.

Curry laughs. "It was a great game," she nods, giggling.]

["The problem we had with the Dark Descent is that you couldn't do the things that Dark Descent did," Pinchbeck says. "Like hiding in a cupboard is amazing, you couldn't hide in a cupboard in A Machine for Pigs … So you're in this really awful situation where you have to make the same game again, but if we made the same game again, it'd just be a disaster. So you're trying to reconcile that contradiction, you're trying to make it the same game, without it being the same game. In the end we talked about it quite a lot, especially with Thomas and Jens [Nilsson, of Frictional Games], and went 'what's the spirit of the original game, what's the trajectory of the original game? Let's do that, let's not do a mechanical recreation.'"]

They NEVER talked down TDD. They loved it. They also said it was good for lets plays and such BECAUSE of the focus of the fear in the game. They didn't even call it a shallow scarefest, like Thomas himself said of TDD. The focus of TDD was more adrenaline focused, more ''oh God, I can't let it see me'', being seen meant running away with the music clanging in the background and such. And yes, it did have a few jump scare centric moments that were huge hits in youtube but calling it a jump scare game is missing the point, and they never called it that. AMFP had a completely other focus on their mind, and its fair share of jump scares. Fear is subjective. Some people were scared by AMFP (i was for most of the game, then wonder took over), some weren't. Just the effects of having a different focus, doesn't make it ''a horribly shitty game by a bunch of morons'' (channeling the rage and hatred on the internet, not quoting anyone from this thread)

If they had wanted to make a youtube lets play friendly game they'd have made a Doom 3 esque game. Doom 3 had its moments of decent atmosphere but the scares were ''BOOO, I WAS IN THE CORNER HA!'' or ''GAURRGUUUAAAAGH!!! I WAS IN THE DARK!" They didn't, and i'm pretty glad.

Penumbra Overture: it had combat which could have affected the player, but it just turned into a boring, but almost necessary tool to explore without being bothered by dogs. Reading notes and doing puzzles didn't really tell a story or experience though the gameplay. The one shining moment that fits in my ''telling a story and communicating feelings through gameplay'' mantra was burning Red. YOU had to do it. That simple decision of pressing a button and realizing what you did was great but it was a single moment in a game, that's not enough. That and this was the worse game they've ever done. The horror completely left the game after you realized you could easily kill the dogs (which was very soon in the game) and it became horror-less.

Penumbra Black Plague: No combat, just the same sneaking around and such. Amabel and Clarence helped a lot in the mantra. Clarence made the player know firsthand that Philip was not well and that helps to tell said narrative point through gameplay, not just being told '' Philip is ill''. Amabel being in the game helped a lot of players get a sort of ''emotional anchor''. Every time I ran into a computer I hoped to talk with her again, even if she was showing signs of the virus. That means that the sheer loneliness that FG tried to exhibit through the tense gameplay worked and made me want to be ''clingy'' with the only character in the game. I could say the same of Red in Overture but he always seemed odd and was frequently rude so he didn't do much for mehaha. Killing Amabel and realizing it was a hallucination (or not) brought on by Clarence TELLS a story through gameplay. Philip is, again, not well. You end up killing your anchor and you begin doubting the things you are seeing ingame more now. Does it fit with my mantra? Yes, the one game FG has done that does JUST enough to fit (SPOILER ALERT). They could do much better and i'll bring up examples.

Skipping Requiem cause why not.

Amnesia: The Dark Descent: It had its moments that it fit with my mantra (drowning the guy is the only moment I can think of right now) but it felt empty. I felt as if I was being thrown around a castle only to hide and run from monsters and solve a few simple puzzles. There was no emotional connection to anything ingame most of the times. It was just a horror game for the sake of being a horror game. A shallow fright-fest, using Thomas' words. Was pretty damn well done, mind you. But doesn't do enough to fit into my mantra.

Dear Esther: haunting narration and music, odd images and specters, and an excellent atmosphere. I didn't feel like I experienced any of the themes ingame, MAYBE experienced some of the person's visions (sometimes you'd see ghosts in certain places) but overall, i was just narrated a story with some excellent music playing under it. Doesn't fit in the mantra.

Amnesia: A Machine For Pigs: It made me explore and see just how twisted Mandus was before and after the ''events''. It had incredible atmosphere and explored themes in such a way that I was affected personally by them. Made me nervous to press the button AND then made me regret doing so. But that's it. Doesn't fit.

Spec Ops: The Line
The Last Of Us (i've written enough about this game in this forum already)
Dead Space series (ditto)
Dishonored (yep)
Max Payne 3 (mostly in how the player feels as drugged out, drunk and depressed as Max thanks to the visuals and narration while playing the game)
Metal Gear Solid 4 (forces you to furiously tap buttons in a section of the game that leaves you feeling mentally and physically drained which is made worse by what happened before and after said section)

These either were based around portraying themes, feelings, narrative, la dee la dee da through gameplay or had moments that did this.