Disappointed with AAMFP

[Janakev]

And the storytelling in TDD wasn't passive? All one did in TDD was walk down hallways, hide from monsters and do puzzles. The levels were slightly less linear but still linear (ie you could technically go to an area before the other but oftentimes you'd have to backtrack to find the items that were in the other rooms). That's still linear design. And besides, why do people care so much about it being linear? Some of the best games i've played have been linear. It's all about how a developer uses it and TCR used it well. And how did TCR use that linearity? To tell a cohesive and well written story and to show off their level design skills. TDD's levels were boring. You really can't do much with a setting such as a castle but I found it lacking. While in AMFP the level design is such a treat to behold.

I must strongly disagree with this. Both were linear games but I felt AMfP hid it far worse than TDD. In TDD you can at least branch off and even circle around; it may only be an illusion of freedom but at least there is that illusion. In AMfP doors are conspicuously locked across the game and you're funnelled along corridors. I never felt as if I had a real choice except to push on.

While AMfP had some beautiful aesthetic choices in its architecture and the scale and design of the machinery I wouldn't say the design of the levels was good in terms of its ability to disguise its linearity or otherwise provide a convincing world.

I barely remember any setpieces from TDD besides the water chase sequence and the ending. That's it. The game was such a hit in youtube and such because people tended to play it as a haunted attraction and ignored the meh writing. It seemed like such a lost opportunity to me, especially after playing through the Penumbra series years before. I came into the game being so excited and by the time the credits rolled I was a little disappointed. I know FG can write a good story, they did so with the Penumbra series so hopefully their secret project delivers. So far it looks like they're on the right road.

Funnily, it's because of Penumbra that I enjoyed TDD so much. It retained what I loved about it while improving on those aspects. AMfP... the puzzles felt far less rewarding to complete and in all honesty I just didn't enjoy the narrative.

I scoured the game to find every note I could, as I've done in the rest but I've still come away shaking my head in confusion about most of it. I won't cry pretension but I do get a feeling of vagueness for its own sake.

And so far the writing in AMFP has been, with all due respect to FG, incredibly better than FG's attempts in TDD. FG's usual Lovecraft tribute-y writing started well and then it fell flat and turned dreadfully boring and uninteresting. TCR are skilled at storytelling and it's pretty obvious to me.

Again, we've had opposite experiences. The writing in AMfP has left me deeply dissatisfied and it's because despite finding every note I've still come away with more questions than answers as to what was going on. Maybe it's that I tried to much to tie the narratives of TDD and AMfP together but frankly when they share the same title--and indeed, there are a number of references to the events of TDD--I don't think that's unreasonable.

While TDD focused almost purely on scares and atmosphere, AMFP focused on storytelling and a more cerebral fear, a less jump scare-y fear. And don't get me started on the useless sanity system, i've already talked enough about it.

I would contend that it was AMfP that relied on jump scares: the monsters that are mostly glimpsed than being real threats, the constant (and very irritating in how cliché it is) chatter of the children, the music which further directed one's attention in a very pointed manner... And it all only served to pull me out and remind me that I was playing a game.

The story in AMFP isn't a ''who-dunnit'' or the usual, it's deeper than that but that'd require actually immersing one's self into the game and paying attention.

And Daniel?

Easy to bond with?

He was a coward that was afraid of his own shadow. At least Mandus was screwed up by his wife's death and that trip to Mexico. Not only is Mandus a better written character but he's also a more interesting one. There wasn't a single character worth writing about in TDD (besides Justine but that's just my bias towards me liking female characters). He actually had beliefs, passion and the intelligence to do what he thought was right...regardless of how insane and wrong placed those three characteristics were.

I've already said my piece about Mandus elsewhere so I'll just quote it:

I'll be slated for saying this, I'm sure but I have to go with Daniel. Mandus feels... almost cartoonish in his villainy. He's the archetypal "well-intentioned extremist" who damns humanity to save it from itself. I couldn't connect with him because everything he does is so much larger than life, like a Dickensian villain who's been turned up to hyperbolic proportions.

Daniel, for me, is the classic tragic hero who dooms himself in his attempts to save himself. He starts out looking for something to take back to the British Museum, maybe motivated by personal glory as well but still a noble pursuit. His pursuit by the shadow, his slow slipping into evil--contrast his initial reluctance to do wrong with the flashback at the alter near the choir where he chides Alexander for interrupting him in cutting a man and later expresses concern that another will be killed 'too quickly'--realisation of what he's become and his attempts to undo his evil.

I suppose Mandus has that in common with him but as I've said, it's hampered somewhat by how ludicrous it all is. I never got a sense that Mandus wrestled with his conscience, he just snaps and throws himself off the deep end. Daniel just feels more personal; he's pushed by desperation into doing what he does. His evils are much more personal as the pain and fear he inflicts isn't simply lost in numbers. He isn't jovial in his insanity (cf. the note about Selwyn (I forget his title)), he's clinical interspersed with bouts of guilt.

I'll happily discuss all of that, I'd be interested to hear differing opinions on it.

Mandus's pontificating was just that and only made worse by the copious purple prose. It was tiresome instead of profound.