Disappointed with AAMFP

[Tiger]

It is a game.

Imagine a chess game, where you can only press "move" button to move pieces and cannot choose which one to move and where - would you still call that a game? Would you still think that you are the one playing it?

If you think Amfp is anywhere close to that... Pardon me, but then you are an idiot.

[Googolplex]

I think the game is actually better than TDD, as hard it is to say.

[Diz]

Welcome aboard the forums!

I was not as scared of A Machine For Pigs as I was of The Dark Descent, but my impression is that it was not supposed to be, either. Instead of focusing on neverending terror, I feel they focused more on other kind of disturbing elements. While I was not piss scared from start to finish, like I was in The Dark Descent, A Machine For Pigs did contain very vivid, horrifying and memorable scenes.

Furthermore, I think that The Dark Descent's theme alone allowed it to focus much more on pure horror, while A Machine For Pigs' theme begs for more focus on grotesque and disturbing events. I found the creatures themselves to be terrifying, but the fact that they most of the time seemingly tried to avoid me gave me more of a safety. Perhaps some of them recognized me? I don't know, yet anyway. There is simply too much of the story that I do not understand just yet, but I will say that when I was not horrified and fearing for my own safety, I was horrified and wondering if I used to be related to them somehow and fearing for the safety of others.

I say this game is well deserving of being called the sequel of The Dark Descent. It plays differently, perhaps to the point of not appealing as much to certain fans, but still, a deserving Amnesia title nonetheless.

[bluel0bster]

This should be in the review thread, there's nothing special or unique about what you're saying, it's been said before many times: http://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/thr...58995.html

I'm tired of replying to confused fans who don't understand the story enough to appreciate the game, so just read this general reply of mine to you simpletons: http://www.frictionalgames.com/forum/thr...#pid258995

[jacksepticeye]

When I read things like these it seems people remember TDD far more fondly than it actually is. They make it seem like the best thing ever created and that it didn't make any of the same mistakes.

TDD's monsters were cool for the first half of the game, then they became highly predictable and annoying.
The story and overall game dragegd WAY too much
The ending to it was pretty poor
Lantern oil and tinderboxes were cool until you realised the dark never actually did anything to you and you could just stockpile them until you actually needed them
Insanity was the same thing. They made you think looking at the monster or being in the dark had some huge side effects but it really didn't. It was just an annoying sound and blurry screen effect.
Th story was decent but it took just a bit TOO much from H.P Lovecraft. AMFP did this too but very clearly had it's own style to it

Overall TDD is a better flat out horror game for sure, but it wasn't perfect. It was full of tedium and backtracking and it was a game with a really strong first half and then a rinse repeat second half.

AMFP has a MUCH better story that is really pervasive and gets in your head and actually made me cringe from time to time.
AMFP also had incredible audio that make TDD look extremely laughable (though those were DIY sounds at the time)
The writing and voice acting were leaps and bounds ahead of TDD too

People are exaggerating how good TDD is and how bad AMFP is in the last few days. When the dust settles I think people will change their opinions slightly again

[padawan]

I'm firmly in the "disappointed" camp, for most of the reasons that can be read here and elsewhere on the internet
(http://jacobalbano.com/2013/09/disappoin...-for-pigs/ ). And none of the arguments of the fans of the game make much sense to me either. Yes, I read all the notes, but using that much text in a videogame is just poor story-telling-technique. Really, if the game had started with a long letter describing everything in the notes, followed by a rapid decent by elevator to the hearth of the machine (why isn't there a direct way to go there? Major plothole!), some valve-turning and then the ending, would the game experience really be different at all? The whole game could and should have been only 30 minutes long and it would have been a better game for it.
The pigmen-monsters could just as well have been omitted, they added nothing to the experience, sorry. If they had only been shown in their holding-cells I might have felt some genuine pity, but now it just felt fake. The whole middle part of the game was basically just a very long maze, all in the dark, so I couldn't really make out the details that supposedly are there.

I really, really tried to experience this game with an open mind, trying to immerge myself. But I never could. I couldn't be bothered with the succes or failure of Mandus and would have killed him (and let the machine win) if I could have.

But what is really strange to me, is that the whole game of AaMfP seems to fly in the face of everything I read on the FG dev blog. I read the blog with great interest, and really liked the high-level analysis there. All these thoughts of techniques to aid immersion, I don't see them back in AaMfP. The "puzzles" in AaMfP are precise the opposite of what the devs seemed to be talking about in the blog: they were annoying, partly because they were so stupidly simple, partly because I didn't experience any logical connection with them and the main storyline and therefore broke immersion.

There was no illusion of freedom, so immersion was broken. There were no choices, so there were no complex emotions or ambiguity, and no identification with the protagonist.
Because there was no inventory, I walked around with the few items that I could pick up squarely in the middle of my screen, because I new I would need them soon. That is exactly not what I do in real life: walking around with stretched arms with some item in it, because I know I will need it in the next room. So at first I couldn't make out the pig on the cross in the church, because, the candle I was holding blocked the view. Bad, bad, bad technique.

And why was there not enough light in the rooms where there were big, very big lamps? Everything was just shadow, and not in the good way (yes, I mean like TDD and Penumbra did it), but it left me with the feeling that the devs couldn't be bothered with letting me really see the world.

And to those who seem to like the story (which I found very cliche) I say: go to the library and read a book. Books cannot be beaten if you want a story told by reading. A game is a different medium and the stenghts and weaknesses should be used as much as possible. I thought from the developers blog that they are thinking hard about what that means, but apperently not. I'm still feeling uncomfortable when I think about Red and the incinerator. Still feel dread at the thought of the torture-apparatus in TDD. I remember well the voice in TDD saying "I should have shaprened the saw". But I'm sorry to say that AaMfP just left me cold, and I don't get why FG failed so spectacular with this game.

[Cuyir]

Hey padawan, maybe you should try understanding the differences between a publisher and a developer. That sometimes helps.

AMFP was developed by TheChineseRoom.

[bluel0bster]

(http://jacobalbano.com/2013/09/disappoin...-for-pigs/).

Your link is dead.

Really, if the game had started with a long letter describing everything in the notes, followed by a rapid decent by elevator to the hearth of the machine (why isn't there a direct way to go there? Major plothole!)

Really? You'd have no problem reading out of context notes for an hour?

And what's wrong with no direct way to get to the heart of the machine? Why is that a plot hole?

If they had only been shown in their holding-cells I might have felt some genuine pity, but now if just felt fake.

They were.

There was no illusion of freedom, so immersion was broken. There were no choices, so there were no complex emotions or ambiguity, and no identification with the protagonist.

Immersion isn't necessarily tied to "illusion of freedom." There were plenty of complex emotions and there was plenty of ambiguity. Just look at the plot discussion thread.

That is exactly not what I do in real life: walking around with stretched arms with some item in it, because I know I will need it in the next room.

And the realistic, real-world alternative is stuffing everything pick-up-able into your pockets as you walk around because you might possibly need it? Inventory in TDD isn't realistic. AAMFP is.

I don't get why FG failed so spectacular with this game.

FG didn't make the game.

[Dune Jumper]

People hate AAMFP because it isn't an Amnesia game. The only thing remotely close to TDD is some of the textures & props. If it was standalone it probably would've gotten higher reviews. But they had to slap Amnesia's name onto it.
Dear Esther is a perfect example of this. If they called Dear Esther a Half-Life game there would've been a riot. But they didn't, so it got high reviews. (Although I don't think Dear Esther deserves the awards it got).

[Janakev]

Nuit, I'm afraid we'll just have to remain in disagreement. I'm not looking for jump scares (I'm not sure if the constant references to that in your post were addressed to me), I genuinely found TDD's story more compelling. There's too many loose ends and parts that just don't work coherently in AMfP for me to really appreciate it.

And yes, I realise Mandus is a well educated man but the needlessly florid language just felt so... well, needless! I can forgive a work written at a time when it was the norm but nowadays it's anachronistic and, to me, feels like a cheap attempt to appeal to the terminally smug brand of person who's in love with their own romanticised intellect. How's that for florid prose, eh?

And if you're going to say Mandus' crimes and sins were his own I'll contend that they were simply born of his own insanity, which is hardly compelling. He doesn't wrestle with his moral choices, he embraces the evil he does all through it. That doesn't feel real, that feels utterly unreal; I could easily imagine him twirling his moustache and cackling maniacally while watching children being fed into the Machine.

You can dress it up as him wishing to teach a lesson but at least TDD's premise--wrangling with the question of how far one would go for self-preservation--while not as profound sounding, is honest.

But I'm getting a sense that this is just going to devolve into both of us disparaging each other's opinions in increasingly acerbic and personal manners. I don't dislike AMfP, I just think the defence it's receiving paints it too idealistically.

Your main bone of contention seems to be that TDD was just a jump scare game (I'm focusing on that because of how much you've been using the phrase), while saying little of its plot and focusing instead on AMfP's plot. I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong, I just would hope you would understand that some of us are criticising AMfP for its writing, not on the basis of its gameplay.

I'm not expecting you to turn around and declare yourself a convert to my opinions but I'd like if you could at least understand that I'm also not screaming blue murder about it like other people are.