AMFP Member Review Thread

[Ghieri]

Dan and Jess have recently commented on a few of the criticisms AAMFP has received, in ways that I'm finding increasingly irritating. I adore both of these people, and I love AAMFP, but I can't contain myself when I read this shit.

Spoiler below!

In a new article written by Jess herself she says:

The writing, music, sound, levels of immersion and psychological depth were all praised to the hilt but then in lots of the reviews we were heavily penalised for the removal of the mechanics that featured in the original game. Why was that a problem? Well…it just was because, games, y’know, should have, like, mechanics. Duh!

I don’t care if you don’t like it, (patently not true but you know what I mean), but what I genuinely do care about, and this goes for fans and critics alike, is that the reason you don’t like it is better than “it’s different to what came before.” It’s weak, insubstantive and if I’m honest pretty bloody dull as a rationale.

Dan has come off with the same kind of swinging, pendulous, strawman's bollocks on his Twitter account as of late, feigning bafflement (I assume he's feigning, for dramatic effect) at why people would say "I'd have liked the game more had it not been called Amnesia", with an almost wilful ignorance of the point.

Reducing these criticisms down to a white noise of negativity with no rhyme or reason behind them is childish and defensive. Lamenting the removal of core game mechanics isn't necessarily evidence that the reviewer has stubborn, immovable notions of what a game "should" be, or that they're too "threatened" by diversity and breadth to see the bigger picture.

And let's be clear, they're not directing this at the wankers who spew hatred and bile in YouTube comments and forum posts; they're talking about professional, "respectable" reviewers, too.

I "get it", in that I'm 100% on-board with TCR and what they did with AAMFP. I get it and I love it. However, I have no difficulty empathising with those who feel differently, which is something I can't say for Dan and Jess if their recent comments are anything to go by. And I have no need to pretend that the negativity is little more than "don't change our games!" insecurity or general narrow-mindedness in order to for me debate the critics. At the same time, you can "get it" and still disagree with it. Which I don't, because I love it

This might just be my frustration talking, but they've earned this reaction. Not the death threats or any of that crap, but the wide range of criticisms from every quarter. They've earned it because they led everyone to believe that the game was going to be something it was never intended to be, through their pre-release descriptions of the game and their stated goals ("needs to be scarier than TDD in order to be successful", etc.). I don't agree with all of the criticisms myself, but they're completely valid and really shouldn't be causing so much eye-rolling over at TCR HQ.

Imagine how it feels to read this kind of response from Dan and Jess if you're one of those who criticised the game (in a rational, reasonable way). How condescending can you get?? I expect these kind of responses from hit 'n' run FG forum members, not from the devs themselves.

Criticising AAMFP isn't the same as denying TCR the right to make something new and different. Saying it's a sequel to Amnesia and then removing everything which was most identifiable as "Amnesia" is another matter. I have no issue with it, but I totally understand why people do and it's the height of arrogance to criticise the critics on that basis.

tl;dr summary - they really need to get over themselves.

You know, I was kind of forgiving of TCR for not making MFP as scary as TDD, because that's hard to do. Now it's not so much, I bet they honestly think MFP is the best damn thing to come out this year and anyone who says otherwise just doesn't get it.

[Cuyir]

I get where she is coming from (hold on to those knees guys and gals) and I can understand her frustration (wait....) but she literally only needed to rethink a few sentences and she wouldn't have come out as flippant.

She starts out well:

This question rests on the idea that games are purely driven by mechanics and goals, and this seems laughably outdated as a concept. Why do we feel the need to classify and name and label before we can enjoy something? Do I need to know whether or not Bach sits in the classical canon before I can appreciate his incredible music? For me, the key is whether it’s an engaging experience (or not). The increasing breadth and diversity in games – a medium that ranges from Tetris to Gone Home – is wonderful. Why is difference such an enormously threatening concept?

We have been accused of trying to destroy the very foundation of gaming and I oscillate between feeling hugely amused and utterly depressed by these claims. A Machine For Pigs was criticised for its removal of mechanics but very little thought was given to the question of whether or why this made it a less successful experience. The writing, music, sound, levels of immersion and psychological depth were all praised to the hilt but then in lots of the reviews we were heavily penalised for the removal of the mechanics that featured in the original game.

And that it was. The thing is that the changes were made for plot related reasons (ie Mandus wasn't scared of the dark or the monsters he helped create and thus he didn't have blur-o vision-o) or creative/flow reasons (puzzles can sometimes completely destroy all flow and trust me on that, Anna's, the game, puzzles ruined the atmosphere although the break of flow also had a reason but that's a discussion for another time). I'd think that a lot of people might not have seen it this way (or not given a toss about seeing this way) and thus reacted and (in the case of journalists) substracted points from their critical assesment. So far so good right? There are reasons for the disappearing mechanics not existing. I think most of us can agree on this.

And then...she did this:

Why was that a problem? Well…it just was because, games, y’know, should have, like, mechanics. Duh!

I don’t care if you don’t like it, (patently not true but you know what I mean), but what I genuinely do care about, and this goes for fans and critics alike, is that the reason you don’t like it is better than “it’s different to what came before.” It’s weak, insubstantive and if I’m honest pretty bloody dull as a rationale.

Spoiler below!

And so started all this mess...again.

She shouldn't have said that the reason people don't like it is because “it’s different to what came before”. Yes, there are some people that think that way. Yes, some people think like this because they didn't care to figure out why they removed those mechanics. YES, they have the right to hold that opinion because they expected something else (although in the defense of AMFP, when it was announced that TCR was developing I knew it was going to turn out like it turned out and I loved it but that's not the point). But NO, don't bring it up. As artists you're supposed to assess the critical assessment of your art. Fuck, that also goes for EVERYTHING. You're supposed to assess which criticism is well founded and which is not. She should have just worded it a hell of a lot better. Why bring up that, quite honestly, weak excuse as to why people didn't like it? I reiterate, some people didn't care to see why the changes were made but you just can't heavily insinuate that everyone who didn't like it didn't because it was different from the first one.

Everything in the article was relatively ''safe'' (people would have still tore her a new one because AMNESIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) till she, well, wrote what I pointed out.

I understand her. I know where she is coming from. But it was horribly worded and worryingly thought out. If she had worked on it, slept on it for a few days and then worked on it some more after getting the frustration out she would have a document that we, people who loved the game, could use and say ''she's right, bravo.'' But nope.

I love her in an unhealthy manner. My love for her could be considered obsessive. But she really needed to rethink that article before publishing it.

[bobbo]

Why was that a problem? Well…it just was because, games, y’know, should have, like, mechanics. Duh!

I shouldn't bother, but I feel offended but this post. As a non-native speaker I spent some time on a few posts describing what I didn't like about the game. Only to be lumped together with the pitchfork wielding Steam Forum hordes.

The lacking gameplay is a problem because the game was advertised by showing gameplay. And now they're surprised that wasn't so well received.

Moreover, to me the lack of gameplay was also a problem because the few puzzle bits that were there - I'm repeating myself - were so simple and stood out so much in between the walking that I felt like a monkey given toy blocks. Not liking a product for valid reasons doesn't equal being threatened by difference. But why do I bother, they obviously don't really care about the feedback. Why would they, their bank accounts are probably looking pretty good from a crapload of pre-orders.

[felixmole]

Dan and Jess have recently commented on a few of the criticisms AAMFP has received, in ways that I'm finding increasingly irritating. I adore both of these people, and I love AAMFP, but I can't contain myself when I read this shit.

Spoiler below!

In a new article written by Jess herself she says:

The writing, music, sound, levels of immersion and psychological depth were all praised to the hilt but then in lots of the reviews we were heavily penalised for the removal of the mechanics that featured in the original game. Why was that a problem? Well…it just was because, games, y’know, should have, like, mechanics. Duh!

I don’t care if you don’t like it, (patently not true but you know what I mean), but what I genuinely do care about, and this goes for fans and critics alike, is that the reason you don’t like it is better than “it’s different to what came before.” It’s weak, insubstantive and if I’m honest pretty bloody dull as a rationale.

Dan has come off with the same kind of swinging, pendulous, strawman's bollocks on his Twitter account as of late, feigning bafflement (I assume he's feigning, for dramatic effect) at why people would say "I'd have liked the game more had it not been called Amnesia", with an almost wilful ignorance of the point.

Reducing these criticisms down to a white noise of negativity with no rhyme or reason behind them is childish and defensive. Lamenting the removal of core game mechanics isn't necessarily evidence that the reviewer has stubborn, immovable notions of what a game "should" be, or that they're too "threatened" by diversity and breadth to see the bigger picture.

And let's be clear, they're not directing this at the wankers who spew hatred and bile in YouTube comments and forum posts; they're talking about professional, "respectable" reviewers, too.

I "get it", in that I'm 100% on-board with TCR and what they did with AAMFP. I get it and I love it. However, I have no difficulty empathising with those who feel differently, which is something I can't say for Dan and Jess if their recent comments are anything to go by. And I have no need to pretend that the negativity is little more than "don't change our games!" insecurity or general narrow-mindedness in order to for me debate the critics. At the same time, you can "get it" and still disagree with it. Which I don't, because I love it

This might just be my frustration talking, but they've earned this reaction. Not the death threats or any of that crap, but the wide range of criticisms from every quarter. They've earned it because they led everyone to believe that the game was going to be something it was never intended to be, through their pre-release descriptions of the game and their stated goals ("needs to be scarier than TDD in order to be successful", etc.). I don't agree with all of the criticisms myself, but they're completely valid and really shouldn't be causing so much eye-rolling over at TCR HQ.

Imagine how it feels to read this kind of response from Dan and Jess if you're one of those who criticised the game (in a rational, reasonable way). How condescending can you get?? I expect these kind of responses from hit 'n' run FG forum members, not from the devs themselves.

Criticising AAMFP isn't the same as denying TCR the right to make something new and different. Saying it's a sequel to Amnesia and then removing everything which was most identifiable as "Amnesia" is another matter. I have no issue with it, but I totally understand why people do and it's the height of arrogance to criticise the critics on that basis.

tl;dr summary - they really need to get over themselves.

In Dan's defense, he said here he agreed AMFP had its share of shortfalls.

[Fortigurn]

In Dan's defense, he said here he agreed AMFP had its share of shortfalls.

He did? How will the fanbois explain that? They claim it doesn't have any shortfalls.

[Paddy™]

In Dan's defense, he said here he agreed AMFP had its share of shortfalls.

Nah you're right, he's not adverse to criticism on the whole, but when people cite the removal of certain game mechanics as a negative Dan and Jess respond by tarring all of these critics with the same "afraid of change" or "you just wanted another TDD!" brush. I think it's more complicated than that, even though I have no criticism of the game myself and loved pretty much everything about it.

[Ghieri]

What rubs me is that they marketed the game as scarier and similar to TDD, put amnesia in the title, and are now perplexed that people were wanting something different, even defensive about it.

[felixmole]

Nah you're right, he's not adverse to criticism on the whole, but when people cite the removal of certain game mechanics as a negative Dan and Jess respond by tarring all of these critics with the same "afraid of change" or "you just wanted another TDD!" brush. I think it's more complicated than that, even though I have no criticism of the game myself and loved pretty much everything about it.

That's true, and perhaps they've learnt something from the criticisms (even though they're not showing it off ). We won't be able to really know as we probably won't be seeing a game of the same genre from them any time soon...

Now a quick off-topic to show some statistics:

Meta-critic reviews: 7.2/10
Meta-critic users: 5.6/10
Forum users: 6.8/10

It seems the critics were not that harsh, seeing this.

[Cuyir]

What rubs me is that they marketed the game as scarier and similar to TDD, put amnesia in the title, and are now perplexed that people were wanting something different, even defensive about it.

As i've said a million times, putting "Amnesia'' in the title does not guarantee anything.

MARIO Party, MARIO Kart, MARIO Golf, etc etc etc.

AMFP has every right to be called "an Amnesia game" seeing how it's still the same core experience with a different focus in the same universe and connected narrative threads. Where they went wrong was saying that it was going to be scarier than TDD and expecting people to embrace psychological horror when a pretty big chunk of the "Amnesia fanbase" played TDD in the most shallow way possible.

Their massive mistake. Even I could have told them that was a bad idea.

[Paddy™]

One of the biggest barriers to productive dialogue we encounter here is the tendency to make pretty strong assumptions about large numbers of people we've never met and to then use those assumptions as the jump-off point for criticism.

If we take everyone's point of view at face value, and don't dig for ulterior motives, ignorance or biases between the lines, things would be easier, less combative and more conducive to understanding and hugs. Being wrong isn't the same as being deceptive; being right isn't the same as being honest. None of us can read minds or divine hidden truths about people from ASCII displayed in our web browsers, so let's accept our limitations and just stick to what's in front of us.

That's not directed at anyone in particular.