Do you think the developers know they're making a shit game or do you think that they seriously believe in their product?
Amy
Game » consists of 4 releases. Released Jan 11, 2012
Amy is a survival horror game where the goal is to survive alongside the eponymous little girl Amy.
2.0 on IGN. Reviewer calls it one of the worst game ever made.
@Klei: Wow. Really? Based on that last paragraph, I kow that trying to argue with you will be pointless. But I think you've got Braid and Super Meat Boy wrong, and you are severely downplaying the achievements of those games in a very unfair way.
But, hey, what would I know? 50% and all that.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/amy/critic-reviews
Every review on there gave it a bad score...
@TheKing said:Every time I read a Colin Moriarty article I get sick to my stomach that this biased hack actually has a paid job writing for a major video game website. Almost all of his articles are pro-sony flamebait drivel with absolutely zero intellectual value. I'm not saying I hate Sony, but the fact that a so-called "professional" journalist is so clearly biased is sickening. Hell, he's only half of IGNs Sony Fanboy writing team, with Greg Miller being the second most biased writer in the industry. As someone that is looking to get into the games writing industry (I am currently an unpaid writer for a small gaming website), it makes sick that these two hacks have jobs. Whew, sorry about that rant.Unfortunately they let him out of doing guides about a year ago and moved to editorial, honestly can't stomach even listening to their playstation podcast anymore because of him which is a shame because I actually found it entertaining otherwise. It's so weird too because on any podcast he isn't on other members of the staff talk about how he is fucking out of his mind, and yet he somehow manages to keep a job there.Colin Moriarty actually writes reviews? I assumed he only wrote pro-Sony "articles".
On the topic of the Amy review, I've seen enough reviews of it to know it's bad, but that doesn't make me trust this review any more.
@Zenaxzd said:I just hate the fact that he is literally insane. Like this is the guy who has gone on record saying Nintendo should no longer make their first party games (Mario, Zelda, etc) because no one cares about them anymore. Like I honest to god do not understand how he can be so out of his mind.@TheKing said:Every time I read a Colin Moriarty article I get sick to my stomach that this biased hack actually has a paid job writing for a major video game website. Almost all of his articles are pro-sony flamebait drivel with absolutely zero intellectual value. I'm not saying I hate Sony, but the fact that a so-called "professional" journalist is so clearly biased is sickening. Hell, he's only half of IGNs Sony Fanboy writing team, with Greg Miller being the second most biased writer in the industry. As someone that is looking to get into the games writing industry (I am currently an unpaid writer for a small gaming website), it makes sick that these two hacks have jobs. Whew, sorry about that rant. On the topic of the Amy review, I've seen enough reviews of it to know it's bad, but that doesn't make me trust this review any more.Unfortunately they let him out of doing guides about a year ago and moved to editorial, honestly can't stomach even listening to their playstation podcast anymore because of him which is a shame because I actually found it entertaining otherwise. It's so weird too because on any podcast he isn't on other members of the staff talk about how he is fucking out of his mind, and yet he somehow manages to keep a job there.Colin Moriarty actually writes reviews? I assumed he only wrote pro-Sony "articles".
From what it sounds like it sounds similar to SIREN: BLOOD CURSE. Which means I may actually enjoy this game more than I expected.
its like they took the most frustrating and horrible parts of RE4 and made an entire game out of it... and did it badly
I would rather play The Binding Of Isaac than Uncharted or Skyrim.@TheVideoHustler said:
@Klei said:
@President_Barackbar said:@Klei: This is the kind of attitude I don't like. Being an indie dev doesn't suddenly give you a pass on quality. If the game sucks, indie or not, it deserves to be called out for it. I had the same feeling about that Garshasp game after the Quick Look when people started defending it due to the production circumstances.We all have opinions, and it's super fine. What I brought up was how disrespectful some so-called critics can be towards a project, disregarding entirely the team who poured their hearts and mind into it. As for my standards, they are considerably lower for indie games. Take Super Meat Boy or The Binding of Isaac. Are they excellent compared to Batman AC, Skyrim and Uncharted? No, they are bad, if leveled to them. However, on an indie standpoint, they are completely outstanding. It wouldn't be faire to compare multi-million projects to some that costs only a couple of months of living.I do not agree with this
Neither do I, especially not on the last part.
It's actually not surprising that this turned out to be a bad game, since all footage leading up to it made it look like just that. I'm more shocked at how people are so torn "well yah, I mean..yah its a bad game, it controls awful, looks worse, and the puzzles are terribly mundane..but c'mon guys why is everyone so down on this game???" Seems like a very clear cut case here - why is anyone white knighting for it? Plenty of games have come out on lower budgets and were much more enjoyable.
Which footage exactly? As even the review footage I have seen so far doesn't make it look like that a bad game, heck you could swap the footage with Resident Evil 4 and it would be hard to tell any big qualitative difference. Also it's a $10 download, not a friggen $60 game, that it won't look as good and won't be as long is to be expected, everybody expecting different really needs a little reality check.It's actually not surprising that this turned out to be a bad game, since all footage leading up to it made it look like just that
Anyway, I haven't played the game and given that almost all reviews are completely negative, there is certainly something quite wrong with it, but a heck of a lot reviews seem to be rather unable to actually properly express what is bad about the game and instead just try to exploit it for misplaced humor, while not actually being funny. The most annoying thing in reading reviews about this game stuff like "looks like a PS2 game" or "controls like a game from 6 years ago", I mean seriously, that's not a critique, that's just plain bullshit, there where a ton of awesome and perfectly playable games back then. Age is simply not a measurement of quality, at best its a measurement of familiarity.
@Grumbel: The videos I saw, which were mostly seen here on GiantBomb, looked like the graphics were quite horrible and the gameplay looked pretty weak. There was no discerning hook so to speak. I was actually under the impression you couldn't fight back at all and you were supposed to hide all the time or something.
I haven't PLAYED the game myself but I watched a good chunk of the game via YouTube playthrough with commentary. What you mention are in fact very major shortcomings in the game that are valid arguments against it. Since it's only $10 lets put all graphical issues aside. Stylistically from what I saw everything is dark and unimaginative. The puzzles the guy played through often relied on forced coop with the Amy character. Completely immersion breaking forced coop at that. Amy presses a button on one side of the room that makes an elevator go up on the other side - you run around, go down a ladder on the other side, push a waist high cart out of the way so Amy can rejoin you and go on. I'm not even going to get into the absurdity of some vile engineer running around this place rewiring all the elevator buttons. 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. Color coded keycards. Lackluster combat. Awful voice acting. Very frustrating checkpoint system that makes you lose hours of gameplay at a time. I mean those are all VERY real and defined issues with the game.
After watching that playthrough up to Chapter 4 (out of 5) I have a hard time thinking of anything positive to say about it. It's only $10 I suppose? I want to say it's an interesting idea but theres almost no follow-through in the execution. Sure there were good games 6 years ago. 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.
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.
@Grumbel 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.
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. The RE4 characters had significantly more lively and less creepy faces.
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.
@Grumbel: Listen I can see you are passionate about defending this game. You haven't played it, have you at least watched a gameplay walkthrough? You seem very adamant about this title not being as awful as everyone is saying it is without having much interaction with it, which is kinda odd.
I am guessing that you are put off by Amy getting called worst game of the year while other high profile titles get smaller, similar flaws overlooked. I agree that certain series being above any reproach is definitely an issue, but Amy is definitely not a game where you make your stand.
Also I'm not sure where you're coming from about old games. We played them back in the day because there was nothing better at the time. We didn't even know there could be anything better. Doom was a great FPS. Until Duke Nukem 3D and Quake came along I didn't even KNOW that mouse look would make things so much better. If someone released a game like Doom 1 now it wouldn't be fun to play. Color coded key cards, almost zero plot, maze like levels with a single texture repeated throughout.. while we still hold older titles in high regard from a historic perspective standards have changed. You can't really compare it to movies because you're actually playing a game.
All I can tell you is, go buy the game, play it, and be honest with yourself about it's quality.
I am not defending the game, how could I without even having played it? I am complaining about reviews that give me no good explanation for why this is a 30% game and not a ~70% game. It's currently the third worst Xbox360 game on Metracritic with 22%.Listen I can see you are passionate about defending this game.
I still play them, as there is still plenty of good and unique stuff that hasn't been superseded by anything modern.Also I'm not sure where you're coming from about old games. We played them back in the day because there was nothing better at the time.
It's still plenty fun to play. Especially considering that it's pacing is nothing like what you find in current day shooters, it's a much faster and more fluent game.If someone released a game like Doom 1 now it wouldn't be fun to play.
Doom has plenty more then a single texture and the maze levels are a feature. I can hardly stand the linear rollercoster rides of today. Also it has save-everywhere and an automap, which plenty of modern console games still lack.Color coded key cards, almost zero plot, maze like levels with a single texture repeated throughout..
Yes, but that's really just a tunnel vision, where everything that doesn't plays like a slightly improved version of last year game is somehow shit. For all the claims about games having improved, most of it really just boils down to three things: Everything is much easier, thus more accessible, better UI and exploitation of human psychology via Skinner Box like tricks. Only the better UIs are a clear improvement, the other stuff is rather questionable and if you dig deeper into the mechanics, things really haven't changed that much. Dialog trees for example are still pretty much exactly the same as 20 years ago. And as boring as the colored-card key might have been, modern days for most part just removed them, not improved them.standards have changed.
Will do when the Steam version comes out (assuming they even bother with a PC port after all those reviews).All I can tell you is, go buy the game, play it, and be honest with yourself about it's quality.
Not sure if this was posted already, a little statement from the developers from their Facebook page:
AMY Hi all - we do appologize for our silence those last days. We're currently reading every comment, review and post in depth, and that takes time. We had horrible reviews along with quite good ones but what seems to be the biggest issue so far is the Checkpoint system. We're going to comment that quite soon. In the meantime, we suggest that you try the "easy" mode (in the settings); This should solve many issues for many of you. Once again, we wait to check out a few things before communicating. We've always been transparent with you and this won't change. Thanks a lot for your understanding.
@konig_kei said:
Do you think the developers know they're making a shit game or do you think that they seriously believe in their product?
I believe that to a certain point they do. They may not agree with players on how good or bad the game is, but they I'm sure they have a feeling for wether it's good or bad. Game designers are not idiots. As far as I know, it's usually a problem of publishers pushing or demanding, or maybe simply that the developing team is working bad, ie. a bad boss, bad communication. I kow a few guys who are working in the industry of AAA games, and one of them said that usually it's bad communication. Also, the dev team have a dream of some kind, and they need someone to finance it. The people who finance it now suddenly own the dream, and make demands on this and that, and the people who finance the game are most likely not game designers.
Some will accept their review but not IGNEurogamer also gave it 2/10 if anyone wants to know. I had not even heard of it before this week so whatever, didn't bother reading the review with a score like that.
Yeah this game seems pretty busted (played the demo), and I fucking love survival horror. The DNA stuff is tedious as all hell, and the combat/camera are terrible. I don't know. I don't mind the escort stuff in theory but Amy gets lost, left behind, and mauled while you're trying to make out exactly what it is you're supposed to be scanning. Reminded me of Haunting Ground if Hewie was a psychic (?) little kid with a befuddled expression and savant-level hacking skills. Also, if he couldn't fight for shit. I feel bad about saying this, but give it a wide, generous miss. It's definitely more old-school than RE5 or Homecoming, but it's not content with the old survival horror niggles; it adds plenty of its own annoyances.
Ugh - I really don't want to come off as too harsh on it because it had a GLIMMER, at least, of potential and I think the core ideas are sound. It's more an issue of iffy execution, but I figure it'd be a niche title no matter how it played so if it interests you, at least try it!
Hey guys, IGN gave Sonic Freeriders for Kinect a 7.5/10, so I wouldn't base my rents or purchases on their opinion alone. Especially considering how corrupt and biased a lot of reviewers are.
@Grumbel said:
Not sure if this was posted already, a little statement from the developers from their Facebook page:AMY Hi all - we do appologize for our silence those last days. We're currently reading every comment, review and post in depth, and that takes time. We had horrible reviews along with quite good ones but what seems to be the biggest issue so far is the Checkpoint system. We're going to comment that quite soon. In the meantime, we suggest that you try the "easy" mode (in the settings); This should solve many issues for many of you. Once again, we wait to check out a few things before communicating. We've always been transparent with you and this won't change. Thanks a lot for your understanding.
Interesting...maybe a post-mortem is in order as to what happened?
@BeachThunder said:
@Jimbo said:
They must be saving 1.0 for something truly special.
Bioshock Infinite. Just you wait, it will actually turn out to be awful...like Duke Nukem Forever - City in the sky edition.
Actually, I really hope not :(
I remember watching Levine at PAX East 2011 watch someone play DNF. The whole time he had a very straight face, either he was silently laughing inside or taking notes.
@mandude: You can't be serious...Sonic Free Riders was a fucking 1/10, everything was broken in that game, I was saying they rated it too high.
@Nux said:
@handlas said:
@mandude said:
He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...Sounds like a valid way to review a game...?
It didn't really seem like he really gave too much examples. He just kinda bashed on it.
Too what? Too much examples? You mean too many examples?
And in the comment section of that review, somebody mentions how the E3 2011 preview coverage landed on, "Amy is Ico with zombies and totally brilliant." Not sure if they were serious or not. That's what happens when you have too many damn people in your editorial department, regardless.
@Grumbel said:
Not sure if this was posted already, a little statement from the developers from their Facebook page:AMY Hi all - we do appologize for our silence those last days. We're currently reading every comment, review and post in depth, and that takes time. We had horrible reviews along with quite good ones but what seems to be the biggest issue so far is the Checkpoint system. We're going to comment that quite soon. In the meantime, we suggest that you try the "easy" mode (in the settings); This should solve many issues for many of you. Once again, we wait to check out a few things before communicating. We've always been transparent with you and this won't change. Thanks a lot for your understanding.
Is this going to be Hydrophobia all over again?
Goddamn. Those Facebook posts are fucking brutal.
because reviews sites can shit on indie games without fear of any sort of reprisal.
I mean, this game isn't good, but it's nowhere near as bad as people are trying to make out.
it looked more fun than Final fantasy xiii at least. now that game is truly dogshit. 1/10
Did anyone see the comment from the deva on Facebook? They claim the game is just hard and that is why it is getting such a cold reception. I haven't played it and can't comment on that, but I don't know exactly how to feel about them even commenting. I like having a voice that devs hear, but not if they are gonna try silencing critics with arguments about why the reviews aren't accurate. Professional reviewers know how to switch difficulty levels and many prolly use easy for review purposes anyway.
It's definitely nowhere near as bad as is implied, but it is still a pretty shitty game. You can look at it as an unfair or a stern review but regardless maybe next time these devs can try to really make something special.
@mandude said:
Disregarding what anyone thinks of the game...that was by far the worst review ever. At no point is the reviewer objective. He just points out the mechanics one-by-one and says they're badly executed...
So he wrote a review?
@damnable_fiend:
I agree, Duke Nukem Forever deserved a 7/10 in my opinion, the lowest being 6/10, but a 5/10? When they gave Sniper: Ghost Warrior a 6/10? You gotta be kidding me. Sniper: Ghost Warrior was a horrible excuse for a game, it was like a shitty mod. I'm not going to, or I don't even think I need to, say anything more than the end of the game is just a black screen that reads "The End", pretty sure that spells it all out right there. Oh, and you gotta love how they gave Sonic Free Riders Kinect a 7/10, a game in which it was a struggle just to get past the fucking menus, let alone actually steer you're hoverboard in game without slamming full speed into a wall. Until I play "Amy" for myself, I'm not going to trust IGN, in fact I don't actually trust any review site that much anyway.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment