Disappointed with AAMFP

[zico]

I wasn't aware I said that you HAVE to like the game.
EDIT: And I would never encourage you to do that F-thing to yourself.

[slo64]

I wasn't aware I said that you HAVE to like the game.

But I have to HAVE the game. And it is not one!

[zico]

I wasn't aware I said that you HAVE to like the game.

But I have to HAVE the game. And it is not one!

Funny enough I thought the same thing about Borderlands and I paid like three times the money for that.

Man, I wasn't planning on offending someone. Just trying to encourage one to go with an open mind.

If you did and you still don't like it - that's too bad. And you are right on expressing that opinion. Especially right to express it here cause I think FG will consider that with the next game.

Heck if the engine changes of AAMFP are transferred to the TDD engine (If I didn't read that wrong) I could imagine at some point someone will release a CS based on AAMFP correcting the unwanted changes. Who knows maybe that will be the first DLC (HINTHINT: Free like Justine).

[grrrz]

It's just a different emphasis.. TCR emphasizes atmosphere and narrative. That's their take on the game.

And it's your fault for not knowing to be honest. TCR told us months ago that gameplay elements would be removed.

This... This man is wise! It's incredibly stupid how people criticize FG
when it's not produced by them.

they fully support The Chinese Room vision (which is a good thing since they produce the game),
just look at this FG dev blog entry on interactive story telling:
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.fr/2013/...ctive.html
I may not agree with everything but it's really coherent with what's in A Machine for Pigs

[Dune Jumper]

When will The Chinese Room learn that for you to sell something as a game, YOU NEED TO IMPLEMENT GAMEPLAY?
I have an idea, why don't people market something as a movie, but when you buy the $10 ticket to see it, you get a slideshow! They don't because it's stupid.

Except amfp actually has gameplay, you dumb fuck.

Holding W and occasional turning a valve hardly counts as gameplay.

[felixmole]

Holding W and occasional turning a valve hardly counts as gameplay.

It's all subjective. Some who weren't very convinced by TDD will say "hide in the corner and wait" isn't gameplay.

[jiersk]

People here keep saying that AAMFP shouldn't be critisized because it's less scary than ATDD. But I do remember that in almost all the comments Dan Pinchdeck made or someone else from TCR, they said that it would be very scary. So it's normal that people expected the game to be pant-wetting scary.

[Cuyir]

It's really frustrating to hear everyone spout the same thing: "There was no gameplay!"

You controlled the movement and look direction of your guy, right? You had a lantern that you could willingly bring out and put away, right? It was completely up to you to understand and solve the puzzles, right? Boom, there you have it; gameplay.

Now, for you to say it was more bare-bones would be better, but I hate it when people say there is no gameplay.

It kind of saddens me that TCR took a more intellectual approach to horror and the vast majority (at least, the vocal majority) is raving and screaming like rabid hyenas. Are you all so jaded on horror games like TDD, Slender and its many clone children, jump-scare custom stories, and Outlast that you need to have some gross monster beating you down for you to feel "scared"? You can't possibly comprehend the horror that comes with the thought that an entire complex exists and was built with the sole purpose of snatching innocent people, feeding them to a meatgrinder, and being fed to a race of genetically mutated man-pigs actually doesn't scare you? Does the immediate scare have to happen to YOU for a game to be considered scary? Are you simply incapable of thinking outside your own little bubble, of thinking about the lives your character impacts and the horrors wrought upon them? Of the unspeakable things human nature allows us to do when all social norms and constructs are cast aside? Of how a little touch of mental instability in one man can spell the potential death of an entire city?

Actually try thinking about a game and what it's trying to accomplish next time before you grab your torches and pitchforks. TCR tried something different, and you all hated it because it wasn't exactly the same as its predecessor, made by a different company entirely. How pathetic is that?

Bravo.

[bobbo]

they fully support The Chinese Room vision (which is a good thing since they produce the game),
just look at this FG dev blog entry on interactive story telling:
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.fr/2013/...ctive.html
I may not agree with everything but it's really coherent with what's in A Machine for Pigs

That's really interesting because I linked to that blog post earlier with the opposite opinion: I think A:AMFP doesn't meet essential parts of that post.

1) Focus on Storytelling"

Well, that's obviously done.

2) Most of the time is spent playing
[...]My view is that the main point of interaction in storytelling is to create a sense of presence, the feeling of being inside the game's world. In order to achieve this, there needs to be a steady flow of active play. If the player remains inactive for longer periods, they will distance themselves from the experience. This is especially true during sections when players feel they ought to be in control. The game must always strive to maintain and strengthen experience of "being there".

I think this would be a part about which players are highly divided over. To me, there was definitely not enough playing. For me, there was too much walking to get to a very short area of playing to then walk again to the next area of playing etc. Every time I got to a set of wheels or buttons it stood out so much just because it happened not often enough. For me, there always was a very noticable "break" between the walking passages and actual interaction.

3) Interactions must make narrative sense
In order to claim that the player is immersed in a narrative, their actions must be somehow connected to the important happenings. The gameplay must not be of irrelevant, or even marginal, value to the story.

While generally A:AMFP does attempt this, I never felt satisfied with my actions. That is because it's never me figuring out what to do next in order to get on with the story, but it is the game's narrative constantly telling me what to do. "My other voice" told me countless times I had to drain the water, so often that it became annoying and I was glad I was over with it eventually just to hear something different. What might have worked better for me would have been the basic information: The kids are in the flooded part, help them. Then, I would have been on my own. Maybe I could have been given a map, on which I would have had to fnd a place from where I could have drained the water. On my way there, I could have heard more voiceover from the kids, telling me that the water is rising, putting me under pressure.

4) No repetitive actions
The core engagement from many games come from mastering a system. The longer time players spend with the game, the better they become at it. In order for this process to work, the player's actions must be repeated over and over. But repetition is not something we want in a well formed story. Instead we want activities to only last as long as the pacing requires. The players are not playing to become good at some mechanics, they are playing to be part of an engrossing story. When an activity has played out its role, a game that wants to do proper storytelling must move on.[...]

Unfortunately, to me this was the biggest let-down in the "puzzles". 90% consisted of turning wheels. I loved that mechanic in the Penumbra games and A:ADD because this way of having to move the mouse definitely helped me feel immersed into the game. But in A:AMFP it's almost like a running gag, a homage to A:TDD. It became so repetitive to me that I felt dumb for doing this banal action yet again - as I said before - I felt like a monkey who was given toy blocks by its keeper.

5) No major progression blocks
In order to keep players inside a narrative, their focus must constantly be on the story happenings. This does not rule out challenges, but it needs to be made sure that an obstacle never consumes all focus. It must be remembered that the players are playing in order to experience a story. If they get stuck at some point, focus fade away from the story, and is instead put on simply progressing. In turn, this leads to the unraveling of the game's underlying mechanics and for players to try and optimize systems. Both of these are problems that can seriously degrade the narrative experience.

This is obviously met in A:AMFP - but in such a way that people, including me, now moan how easy the challenges were.

[gremstein]

TCR tried something different, and you all hated it because it wasn't exactly the same as its predecessor, made by a different company entirely.

You are absolutely right, sir. But the problem is, they placed this game under the Amnesia flag, therefore, people like me, expected an Amnesia game. If they wanted to give us something different, that's fine, but they should have branded it differently as well, instead of using a pre-established brand.

I don't speak for you, or anyone else of course, but for me personally, I would compare it to when Nintendo allowed other companies to make Mario and Zelda games. People bought and played the games expecting the same kind of awesomeness that they fell in love with before, only to be sorely disappointed.