+- Frictional Games Forum (read-only) (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Amnesia: A Machine For Pigs (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-50.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/forum-51.html)
+--- Thread: Less Interactivity than before? (/thread-22675.html)
RE: Less Interactivity than before? - cantremember - 09-02-2013
I agree you should be able to move more objects. Like in The Dark Descent you could move flower pots and small rocks and chairs around, but the further the game progressed, the fewer 'meaningless' objects seemed to be movable (or I just tried it less?) Like small wood fragments from a hole in the ceiling, for some reason glued to the ground.
In Penumbra I loved being able to push the closets over, and move the matress around in the cell, it really helped with the immersion that you are really there, looking for a way out, as opposed to figure out a puzzle by hovering over an object that happens to show hand icon.
It's also something I really hated in Half-Life 2. Their source engine with physics was supposed to be the next big thing, but the physics were way off (everything seemed really light) and the only objects you could move are cans, and some barrels and planks which were meant to be part of a teeter-totter puzzle, most of the crap on the floor was glued to it.
It would be cool if you really could slow down a monster by jamming the door with a table, like in one of the Amnesia trailers
RE: Less Interactivity than before? - Googolplex - 09-02-2013
(09-02-2013, 07:57 PM)cantremember Wrote: In Penumbra I loved being able to push the closets over, and move the matress around in the cell, it really helped with the immersion that you are really there, looking for a way out, as opposed to figure out a puzzle by hovering over an object that happens to show hand icon.
That's it.
RE: Less Interactivity than before? - Ossie - 09-02-2013
Good god people, either watch a short LP of the game or trust those of us who have when we say that there IS object interactivity - enough of it to satisfy you all.
(09-02-2013, 04:52 PM)Googolplex Wrote: I want to move objects even when they are useless.
I hope there are boxes or other crap in the environment I can pick up and move.
Not every thing must be an inventory object, but to grab in the environment makes a game more immersing and interesting. It's really boring when I only can pick up special objects with sense, which are waiting for you to get picked up.
Given your criteria, you'll be fine.
RE: Less Interactivity than before? - samueljustice00 - 09-03-2013
Let me explain the choice for what may be perceived as less object interaction. Early on in development, when we began building the worlds - everything was interactive, this in turn had a huge hit on performance as we were using a lot more props (and new higher detailed models) than TDD. The framerate would drop, memory usage was way more than it should have been.
Throughout development we back and forthed on whether we should cut down on props to enable more interactivity, or keep the props to allow the visual storytelling to shine - to create that believable world. As we began to build the core gameplay, it was very apparent that sometimes props got in the way, as the difference between key items and dressing was fairly mixed up. This was through a multitude of playtesting, and the new direction we took with no inventory meant that glowing blue objects looked really odd when being interacted with.
So in short, at first it was a performance choice - to enable us to create the richest environment that we possibly could. This decision passed on throughout development as the game itself was being built and tuned. There are still tonnes of object interactions and general interactions in the game, just the standard interactions player might've been used to in TDD (such as picking up a small hammer etc) will not be as prominent.
RE: Less Interactivity than before? - GrAVit - 09-03-2013
(09-03-2013, 08:32 AM)samueljustice00 Wrote: Let me explain the choice for what may be perceived as less object interaction. Early on in development, when we began building the worlds - everything was interactive, this in turn had a huge hit on performance as we were using a lot more props (and new higher detailed models) than TDD. The framerate would drop, memory usage was way more than it should have been.
Throughout development we back and forthed on whether we should cut down on props to enable more interactivity, or keep the props to allow the visual storytelling to shine - to create that believable world. As we began to build the core gameplay, it was very apparent that sometimes props got in the way, as the difference between key items and dressing was fairly mixed up. This was through a multitude of playtesting, and the new direction we took with no inventory meant that glowing blue objects looked really odd when being interacted with.
So in short, at first it was a performance choice - to enable us to create the richest environment that we possibly could. This decision passed on throughout development as the game itself was being built and tuned. There are still tonnes of object interactions and general interactions in the game, just the standard interactions player might've been used to in TDD (such as picking up a small hammer etc) will not be as prominent.
Thanks, I thought it was far worse than that. Eases my mind quite a bit.
RE: Less Interactivity than before? - Googolplex - 09-03-2013
But you could make an option "Enable interactive objects" for high end computers which are powerful enough to handle an acceptable frame rate.
The game already used 4-core CPUs compared to TDD. There could be one thread just for interactive objects. This option should be disabled by default and only active for users with high end hardware.
But you are right that the blue light looks ugly for interactive objects. I always hate it in games, because that destroys a realistic feeling. Even TDD shouldn't have it.
RE: Less Interactivity than before? - TwiK999 - 09-03-2013
(09-02-2013, 10:36 AM)felixmole Wrote: Personally, I am fully confident that the game will be at least as much enjoyable as TDD, because it is FG-approved. It is actually why I don't play custom stories: I have nothing that indicates how close each of them are to the original game's gameplay.
Hear Hear. I trust FG, therefore I trust TCR. I think it's good that they brought TCR into the Amnesia world, it brings fresh new ideas. We don't want a new game that is too much like TDD, but then again, not one thats completely different, we want a mix of both. I trust that we will have the Amnesia we all know and love, but with differences for the better.
RE: Less Interactivity than before? - Clord - 09-03-2013
(09-03-2013, 08:32 AM)samueljustice00 Wrote: Let me explain the choice for what may be perceived as less object interaction. Early on in development, when we began building the worlds - everything was interactive, this in turn had a huge hit on performance as we were using a lot more props (and new higher detailed models) than TDD. The framerate would drop, memory usage was way more than it should have been.
Throughout development we back and forthed on whether we should cut down on props to enable more interactivity, or keep the props to allow the visual storytelling to shine - to create that believable world. As we began to build the core gameplay, it was very apparent that sometimes props got in the way, as the difference between key items and dressing was fairly mixed up. This was through a multitude of playtesting, and the new direction we took with no inventory meant that glowing blue objects looked really odd when being interacted with.
So in short, at first it was a performance choice - to enable us to create the richest environment that we possibly could. This decision passed on throughout development as the game itself was being built and tuned. There are still tonnes of object interactions and general interactions in the game, just the standard interactions player might've been used to in TDD (such as picking up a small hammer etc) will not be as prominent.
It was essentially a business decision to sell more copies of the game. Still I would appreciate an option to pick up stuff that would not fit for barricading and are not used for puzzles.
RE: Less Interactivity than before? - Ossie - 09-03-2013
Why don't those of you worrying about this just wait until you play the game? It's much easier that way.
Either that or trust what Samuel has said (and also what I said earlier based on watching other people play through the first 30 minutes). There's plenty of things that are irrelevant to any puzzle solving which you can pick up and/or move. So quit worrying.
RE: Less Interactivity than before? - Googolplex - 09-03-2013
(09-03-2013, 05:08 PM)TwiK999 Wrote: Hear Hear. I trust FG, therefore I trust TCR. I think it's good that they brought TCR into the Amnesia world, it brings fresh new ideas. We don't want a new game that is too much like TDD, but then again, not one thats completely different, we want a mix of both. I trust that we will have the Amnesia we all know and love, but with differences for the better.
In my long experience of gaming I noticed that "new ideas" often ended up to "bad ideas". Instead to keep the good way on, developers often wanted to create some "fresh" and that annoyed the fans of the franchise.
Good games are good, because they are as they are. I don't see any sense to change the concept.
Less puzzles, less interaction, short duration - where are the new ideas? This more looks like they rip off all good ideas. A game can have an excellent story and good at horror, but for an experience I need more than just a good story. I want puzzles and other work to do.