AMFP Member Review Thread

[gremstein]

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.

[Draug]

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.

[MyRedNeptune]

Wow, so you find no differences between an inventory and a story?

That wasn't my point at all.

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

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?

[MusicforMovies]

My game time was 7 hours - this included exploring, reading the notes, and getting stuck once on a puzzle.

The positives: Great story, atmosphere, and music.

Overall though, it is a great experience, however having the title 'Amnesia' in it is a bit problematic. It is simply not 'Amnesia' in comparision with the first game.

It is a 'horror' story, but it is not 'surival-horror'. It does induce foreboding, but not the sheer 'terror' - not even close - to the original 'Amnesia.'

Those that have not played though original Amnesia may very well enjoy 'A Machine for Pigs': those that have played 'Dear Esther' and enjoyed, and are looking for something darker and more horrifying - will also most likely enjoy AAMFP.

However, those who absolutely loved the first Amnesia and the sheer terror of playing that game will most likely be deeply let down by this game. It simply - in no way - matches the original Amnesia.

This leaves one with a bit of a problem. If this game didn't have the title 'Amnesia' in it, I'd probably gladly at least give it a 8 out of 10; however with the title 'Amnesia' in the game - comes a certain standard and that standard was simply not met - I'd have to give it a 6 out of 10 and that is being kind.

I've read other reviews about 'wasted potential' and I think that is very apt. So many wonderful locations which would have been great with more first Amnesia-like moments or scares, but completely left empty and void.

A lot of this is due to the stripping of the game-play mechanics. This, in my opinion, was a horrible decision and removed a lot of the tension int the first game.

It's not a bad game, but it isn't Amnesia - it would have been better just to market this game as "A Machine for Pigs" and leave 'Amnesia' out of it so the game could be enjoyed on its own merits and not compared to the first Amnesia.

Hopefully - in the future - there will be a proper 'Amnesia' made by Frictional Games that will live up to the title 'Amnesia'. This game is not that game. It's a great game in its own right, but it is not 'Amnesia.'

So - the game by itself - 8.5 / 10 - however as an 'Amnesia' game - 6 / 10. I hope this review helps. Peace.

[gremstein]

I see, thank you for posting that for me, droog.

[felixmole]

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.

[MusicforMovies]

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.

They should have kept the former inventory system period, and - where possible - given more interactive objects. Being able to kick a pig mask, but not pick it up was annoying to say the least.

[MyRedNeptune]

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.

Yeah. So far I've judged AAMFP based on its story, since that seems to have been its primary focus.

I thought a lot of the mechanics were questionable, but the game strikes me as largely experimental in that sense. So even though I might criticize them, I won't really hold it against FG. I like that they're trying out new things, even if they fail.

[bobbo]

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.

Couldn't agree more. It was exactly that trailer that had me eagerly waiting for this sequel. Just like back when I saw an A:TDD trailer with the character anxiously hiding from a monster. Only that last time my expectations were fully met while now they were just disappointed.

[GOAT]

I would give it 4/10 solely because of how silly the monsters were