You could try running a compressor over it, that won't be enough, but it might make it a bit better. In the end there is no way around a microphone for everybody, doesn't really have to be the most expensive ones for voice, just so that it doesn't sound like one is sitting in front of the mic and the rest at the back of the room.
Grumbel's forum posts
I am not making an argument that Amy is a good game, I am arguing that "plays like a 5 year old game" isn't a good enough argument for giving a game a 30% score. If it sucks, so be it, but I expect a better explanation for why it sucks, especially when it cost $10, as that is pretty much the price you pay today for a 5 year old game.If you think that comparing Amy to a game that was released in 2005 and saying that they have similar graphical quality is somehow a point in Amy's favor, you're just a tiny bit wrong about that.
Yes, but again, Amy isn't exactly the first game to have creepy faces, especially when it comes to children. Also it's survival horror and, as far as I understand it, your character actually turns partly into a zombie in the game, so one could say "it fits the setting".Besides, the biggest offender with Amy's graphics (that I have seen) are the horrible faces and dead eyes everyone has that your backside screen shots omit entirely.
Also:
If the game is so damn awful, I'd expect some obvious difference, but I don't see it.
The graphics won't win any best graphics of the year award, sure, but horrid? For comparison:The videos I saw, which were mostly seen here on GiantBomb, looked like the graphics were quite horrible and the gameplay looked pretty weak.
Stylistically from what I saw everything is dark and unimaginative.
So are most other games.
You send out Amy to crawl through "tight" places that are obviously large enough for your player character to crawl through in order to retrieve items.
So what? Modern Warfare has endless respawning enemies, Uncharted is a mass-murder simulator where the story never addresses the fact how evil Nathan Drake is. I am not saying that those flaws don't matter, but simply that reviews are very forgiving in every other game about similar flaws, i.e. such minor flaws are simply not what makes a game bad, they are just the useless talking points on which reviews like to ride around when they don't have any better ideas of what actually makes the game bad.
Very frustrating checkpoint system that makes you lose hours of gameplay at a time.
That is so far really the only point I could find that would explain the really bad review scores, but that's still not anything that would put it into "worst game ever" territory, but simply "ok game ruined by checkpoint system".
So were all games shit back then? Why exactly did we then bother to play them? One can certainly make an argument about accessibility, a lot of the games back then where certainly kind of unforgiving compared to today, get a Game Over restart from scratch and stuff like that. Certain other games also have simply been superseded by more modern games, so there is little need to play Random Game 1 when you can play Random Game 5 which has improved graphics and such, but does still much the same thing. But neither of those makes those games bad, especially not the "Worst game ever" kind of bad that people claim Amy is. It simply makes them old, adjust your expectations and you can have plenty of fun with old games. I don't expect special effects like today and a Michael Bay fast cutting style in my 1950 sci-fi movies either.Age is very much a measurement of quality. I loved Test Drive when I first played it in 1995 on my 66mhz pc - I sure as hell don't want to play anything like that NOW.
Log in to comment