Amnesia dark descent vs penumbra black plague

[Googolplex]

Redist-> entities-> enemies

MAKES SENSE!

From an interview with Thomas Grip:

"...Another aspect Grip notes is "no enemies," which he clarifies as follows: "What I mean is that we need to stop thinking of any creatures that we put into the game as 'enemies.' The word enemy makes us think about war and physical conflict, which is really not the focus in a horror game."

[MyRedNeptune]

Haha, poor Thomas. Little did he know that him stating his game design ideology will cause peeps to randomly pick at words and their meanings and whatnot.

[Googolplex]

Haha, poor Thomas. Little did he know that him stating his game design ideology will cause peeps to randomly pick at words and their meanings and whatnot.

Thomas has right in every single word.

[Bridge]

From an interview with Thomas Grip:

"...Another aspect Grip notes is "no enemies," which he clarifies as follows: "What I mean is that we need to stop thinking of any creatures that we put into the game as 'enemies.' The word enemy makes us think about war and physical conflict, which is really not the focus in a horror game."

And we (read: you) need to stop thinking that semantics have any effect on reality. The monsters are what they are and you can never change that, no matter what you call them. In the end it's just not worth the energy. Just refer to them as enemies because it's an idea that is instantly recognizable to everybody and thus everyone will know what you are talking about. That is why we are flailing are fingers on labelled pieces of plastic and moving our mouths right? To communicate?

I also don't want to impugn Grip's game design but up until now all of his released games have incorporated elements of physical conflict. Amnesia has so many sections where the player is in immediate danger of being killed that I would call it a major focus of the game. Now, how does that relate to what he's saying about war and physical conflict not being the focus of a horror game? In a life-or-death situation, the predator is the prey's worst enemy. You don't think the animal in question is fighting for its life just for fun? I also seriously doubt an antelope would want to get into a semantic argument with you about what the lion that's eating it actually is. Who cares if it's a denizen of nature or a fucking enemy? It's still a huge obstacle in the path of survival.

[MyRedNeptune]

Haha, poor Thomas. Little did he know that him stating his game design ideology will cause peeps to randomly pick at words and their meanings and whatnot.

Thomas has right in every single word.

Of course he's right. If he worded his ideas slightly differently though, this conversation wouldn't even exist.

[Danny Boy]

Redist-> entities-> enemies

MAKES SENSE!

From an interview with Thomas Grip:

"...Another aspect Grip notes is "no enemies," which he clarifies as follows: "What I mean is that we need to stop thinking of any creatures that we put into the game as 'enemies.' The word enemy makes us think about war and physical conflict, which is really not the focus in a horror game."

I never said I didn't agree whit you... I only found amusing that after reading your text I remembered that the servants were called "enemies" in the source file.

[Googolplex]

From an interview with Thomas Grip:

"...Another aspect Grip notes is "no enemies," which he clarifies as follows: "What I mean is that we need to stop thinking of any creatures that we put into the game as 'enemies.' The word enemy makes us think about war and physical conflict, which is really not the focus in a horror game."

And we (read: you) need to stop thinking that semantics have any effect on reality. The monsters are what they are and you can never change that, no matter what you call them. In the end it's just not worth the energy. Just refer to them as enemies because it's an idea that is instantly recognizable to everybody and thus everyone will know what you are talking about. That is why we are flailing are fingers on labelled pieces of plastic and moving our mouths right? To communicate?

I also don't want to impugn Grip's game design but up until now all of his released games have incorporated elements of physical conflict. Amnesia has so many sections where the player is in immediate danger of being killed that I would call it a major focus of the game. Now, how does that relate to what he's saying about war and physical conflict not being the focus of a horror game? In a life-or-death situation, the predator is the prey's worst enemy. You don't think the animal in question is fighting for its life just for fun? I also seriously doubt an antelope would want to get into a semantic argument with you about what the lion that's eating it actually is. Who cares if it's a denizen of nature or a fucking enemy? It's still a huge obstacle in the path of survival.

An more easy example for you:

You make a walk in a forest, suddenly a wolf is attacking you because he wanted to protect his puppies.
The wolf doesn't understand that you don't want to kill his puppies, for him you are instinctively a threat.
So, he attacks you.
But. Are wolves your "enemies"?

There is a conflict, without to be an enemy.

[Statyk]

The wolf is attacking me, so whether I caused the conflict or not, he/she is INDEED an enemy to me, as I need to fight for my life. So yes, it is an enemy. I know exactly what Thomas was meaning when he said what he said. But I don't think "enemy" only remarks war and physical conflict. Anyone or anything can be your enemy depending on the qualifications within that moment. Homework is your enemy when you struggle with it because it could mean the passing or failure of a course, understand?

Enemy, like Bridge said, is something we simply use to aid in communication and organization. Thomas just decided to put more thought into it.

[Bridge]

From an interview with Thomas Grip:

"...Another aspect Grip notes is "no enemies," which he clarifies as follows: "What I mean is that we need to stop thinking of any creatures that we put into the game as 'enemies.' The word enemy makes us think about war and physical conflict, which is really not the focus in a horror game."

And we (read: you) need to stop thinking that semantics have any effect on reality. The monsters are what they are and you can never change that, no matter what you call them. In the end it's just not worth the energy. Just refer to them as enemies because it's an idea that is instantly recognizable to everybody and thus everyone will know what you are talking about. That is why we are flailing are fingers on labelled pieces of plastic and moving our mouths right? To communicate?

I also don't want to impugn Grip's game design but up until now all of his released games have incorporated elements of physical conflict. Amnesia has so many sections where the player is in immediate danger of being killed that I would call it a major focus of the game. Now, how does that relate to what he's saying about war and physical conflict not being the focus of a horror game? In a life-or-death situation, the predator is the prey's worst enemy. You don't think the animal in question is fighting for its life just for fun? I also seriously doubt an antelope would want to get into a semantic argument with you about what the lion that's eating it actually is. Who cares if it's a denizen of nature or a fucking enemy? It's still a huge obstacle in the path of survival.

An more easy example for you:

You make a walk in a forest, suddenly a wolf is attacking you because he wanted to protect his puppies.
The wolf doesn't understand that you don't want to kill his puppies, for him you are instinctively a threat.
So, he attacks you.
But. Are wolves your "enemies"?

There is a conflict, without to be an enemy.

Semantics, man. Yes, if the wolf poses a serious threat to my survival he is an enemy.

[Froge]

Bridge and Statyk have it right.

Googol, you also mentioned that "fun" should not be used to describe high quality video games. Can you just stop worrying about semantics?