Amnesia: A Machine For Pigs Discussion Topic Part 1

[Googolplex]

Yes, I totally agree here. Dear Esther is a good story based game, and it is unique and very immersing. But it was by far not that kind of game what I would call a "masterpiece" of a complex experience and melancholic emotions.
Compared to Penumbra, which is a bit more, Dear Esther is not worth to be called a masterpiece.
For example, Penumbra has the interaction, the puzzles, the thinking about environment, physics based engine and gameplay, monsters (dogs and spiders), more story and a feeling about the main character.
Dear Esther is just a walking simulator compared to a game of FG's universe.
There are a lot things missed in the game to be a masterpiece. But I'm sure, Dear Esther is as they want. Chineseroom wanted to show how intellectual a game can be without player actions.

But for a REALLY good game, it is too less. Interaction and puzzles are a must have! As more of that, as better the game. Apart of the story.

Penumbra is a game I could never stop buying, I really love this game. But Dear Esther is just nice to play - not more. And that because Dear Esther is ONLY story based, not immersing enough for an unique experience.

[Kein]

atilathegun wrote: "So recently I picked up "Dear Esther" developed by thechineseroom who as most of you know are now developing AAMFP. While playing through Dear Esther, I noticed something very strange and out of place. Near the end of the game, scrawled on a cliffside in massive chalk-like letters, was the word "Damascus." Those who have played Dear Esther will know it is very cryptic, but that word Damascus particularly stood out to me, as it had nothing to do with the story whatsoever."
Wrong.
Going completely OT, but Damascus has everything to do with the story in Dear Esther and is to be found many times throughout the game (in the narrative and scrawled on various surfaces).
Google it.

Oh, and I was about to reply, haha, thanks for doing it for me.
ITT: people who has no idea what is the game about or even haven't played it trying to discuss it. Sorry, but that is kind of pathetic.


Ossie

However, from reading interviews with Dan and Thomas over the past few months I'm 100% certain that AAMFP is going to have very good interaction with the environment.

This. It is like written all over interviews.

Nobody said there will be no interaction. Where is all this panic came from?

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

ITT: people who has no idea what is the game about or even haven't played it trying to discuss it. Sorry, but that is kind of pathetic.

Umm...what? Excuse me, but I was under the impression that discussing theories about upcoming games from Frictional and thechineseroom was, amongst other things, kind of the point of this forum and this thread in particular. No one here claims to know what it will be like, we're just trying to have an engaging conversation about the information given to us so far.

I mean, in all seriousness, what else are we supposed to do in this thread? Spam "omg I can't wait until it comes out!" over and over until we reach page 400?
Nobody forces you to read the discussions, or even join in, so please try to be less offensive. Nobody has given you any reason to react in such a way.

[failedALIAS]

I refuse to read any of this. What else could we still argue about? Didn't we already go through immersion, like 50-100 pages ago?

You clearly don't understand the complexity that revolves around a game like this.

[maarten12100]

I played dear esther if that is what one could call it.
There is no play element it is more like watching 3d models turn into a landscape of beauty.

[Jack O'Lantern]

I've played Dear Esther, and I found it to be a phenomenal, beautiful and emotional experience which was quite unlike anything I have ever felt before. I think if a game/film/album or work of any medium can do that, it is an incredible feat.

I can't think of anyone better to develop A Machine For Pigs than thechineseroom.

[failedALIAS]

I've played Dear Esther, and I found it to be a phenomenal, beautiful and emotional experience which was quite unlike anything I have ever felt before. I think if a game/film/album or work of any medium can do that, it is an incredible feat.

I can't think of anyone better to develop A Machine For Pigs than thechineseroom.

*cough*

[Kein]

Hirnwirbel
Re-read my post. I was talking about Dear Esther in a first part.

[Bridge]

Hirnwirbel
Re-read my post. I was talking about Dear Esther in a first part.

The game isn't about anything. There are vague traces of a love story and a car accident that make no sense especially since the order in which they are exposed to you is supposedly random. Therefore the game has no set-up, no conflict and consequently no resolution which is a general prerequisite to most stories. It also has no character development, the world goes through exactly zero changes and nothing is accomplished by anybody. Ergo: It's not a story. Why is this game lauded for its poignant artistry? I can tell you it's mostly due to the great score which fills every scene with a lot of emotion, but it only gives the illusion of depth (like the Star Wars prequels). I'm sure they put some work into creating the "story" but it is just so static and fragmentary that the player learns exactly nothing by the end of it. It's not "deep" just because it's mysterious (you have to have a good story to tell before you surround it in an air of mystery).

EDIT: Also, you've got some nerve telling people they don't understand what a game is about. If they played it, they get the story. If it went over their head, that's the artist's fault, not the audience's. If the artist specifically created whatever the piece of art in question is with the intention of obscuring the true meaning so that only a few people would get it, that is a bad piece of art. That's not to say art has to be simplistic, but it absolutely does have to be comprehensible, if not clear.

[Kreekakon]

Also, you've got some nerve telling people they don't understand what a game is about. If they played it, they get the story. If it went over their head, that's the artist's fault, not the audience's. If the artist specifically created whatever the piece of art in question is with the intention of obscuring the true meaning so that only a few people would get it, that is a bad piece of art. That's not to say art has to be simplistic, but it absolutely does have to be comprehensible, if not clear.

This could be debatable as it's a bit difficult to clearly point out the differences between "the work being only slightly vague, and it's a few of the audience being too dumb to get it", and "The work being overly vague, and it's the artist's fault for it being so". It's not that easy to draw a clean line between the two.

Just saying.

---

I hate it when the thread obscures the newest post of the next page in this thread >: (