(09-11-2013, 06:28 PM)gremstein Wrote: I would be curious to hear the developer's thoughts about why they chose to remove the majority of environmental interaction in the new game. The only objects I was able to interact with were chairs, a few select doors, and progression specific items. Oh, and lamps, which really seemed to serve very little purpose other than being able to turn them on and off.

(09-11-2013, 06:07 PM)felixmole Wrote: Wow, so you find no differences between an inventory and a story?

Quote:"It had the best fucking story ever" is just about as informative as "This game is stupid because it doesn't have an inventory".

(09-11-2013, 06:47 PM)MyRedNeptune Wrote: Key word - "informative". Both comments tell me nothing about what might be good or bad in the game. They just tell me that somebody liked the story, and another person disliked that it didn't have an inventory. And that's it, no further comment.

If they'd actually commented on why they think so, their assertations on behalf of the quality of the game might have carried more weight, you know?

Also, are you suggesting that the people who praise the story are "right" simply because they have focused on the story rather than the mechanics, and the story is more important somehow?

(09-11-2013, 06:31 PM)droog Wrote:

(09-11-2013, 06:28 PM)gremstein Wrote: I would be curious to hear the developer's thoughts about why they chose to remove the majority of environmental interaction in the new game. The only objects I was able to interact with were chairs, a few select doors, and progression specific items. Oh, and lamps, which really seemed to serve very little purpose other than being able to turn them on and off.

quote from samueljustice00, sound designer of aamfp:

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.

(09-11-2013, 06:55 PM)felixmole Wrote:

(09-11-2013, 06:47 PM)MyRedNeptune Wrote: Key word - "informative". Both comments tell me nothing about what might be good or bad in the game. They just tell me that somebody liked the story, and another person disliked that it didn't have an inventory. And that's it, no further comment.

If they'd actually commented on why they think so, their assertations on behalf of the quality of the game might have carried more weight, you know?

Also, are you suggesting that the people who praise the story are "right" simply because they have focused on the story rather than the mechanics, and the story is more important somehow?

Well, to me, the inventory is a technical thing. The story is more of an important bit, but since quite some people didn't understand the story behind TDD, I may be completely wrong...

Anyway, I hadn't got your point, I now understand that you were just criticizing the lack of constructiveness in these posts.

(09-11-2013, 04:59 PM)atticman Wrote: Can anyone tell me where in the game this TDD-esque moment (00:33) was? Because I didn't experience it. Not to say that a moment from a year ago should or should not have been cut from the game, but that advertisement made the game appear to be in the same horror vein of avoidance, hiding, and survival as TDD, which was the element I missed the most in AMFP.

Spoiler below!

[video=youtube]http://youtu.be/4CagMNLxa9M?t=33s[/video]

Which is interesting, because now that I really think about it, as well-written as the story was, it would only have been bolstered by TDD-esque gameplay.

What's Mandus's motivation? To find his kids. Why? Because he continues to mention that.

But as we continue through the game, after each set piece, Mandus makes a huge to-do about what he's facing and how he's overcoming adversity. A game should never have to tell a player how difficult or scary their experience is, the player should be able to make that determination from first hand experience.

If the story was primarily about one man's quest for redemption by overcoming the most hellish machinations of his fevered mind, should he not be utterly broken by his quest? Should the experience not shatter every visage of sanity that the man has? Should the experience not have the same weight and horror as TDD? That way, at the end of everything that Mandus has struggled through, instead of a scrap of paper or scribble in a journal telling us how we are supposed to feel, the player could know first hand the hell they've gone through, and experience the heartbreak themselves.

Also, in regards to character development:

It is worth noting that merely mentioning the children in past-tense doesn't tug at the heart strings as much as say-

A flashback (using the mansion environment with more light) or a simple voiceover during one of the unconscious periods where you hear Mandus speak lovingly to his children, or they have a simple piece of dialogue back and forth. Just something to experience/see rather than read.