Trailers: Amy - Trailer

Amy - Trailer

And here I thought that little girls loved zombies.

Watch Video

This looks good! Having a little girl must make you feel really vulnerable.

This looks really good. And I'm definitely going to play it, but at the same time... one big escort mission is annoying. But it should be good if the AI isn't retarded, which is usually what kills escort missions. Looking forward to it. No doubt about that.

This is a PSN/XBL game?

I thought it would be a retail title.

Hmm, might be worth picking up.

Certainly interested, although will it be able to differiate itself from the many other surivival horrors other than by the Amy aspect? Guess I'll wait for some reviews.

Well, this is all very good and well, but do you guys remember the last time a game had a good first trailer? That was Dead Island and it was completely mauled by reviewers everywhere. And that trailer wasn't just good; it was spectacular. I'm just going to sit this one out before I make any judgement about whether I want to play it or not.

Sweet, a Zombie game. Those are rarely ever made or ever seen....................................................................................

Also, that trailer left me confused, and barely showed any game play. I'm tired of trailers where they show no game play and just freaking cut scenes.

Asuka Soryu:
Also, that trailer left me confused, and barely showed any game play. I'm tired of trailers where they show no game play and just freaking cut scenes.

Which is the reason why after Dead Island screwed so many people over that instead of jumping to any conclusions about this i'll instead wait for some gameplay trailers because initially it seems like this game might be an interesting one setting/atmosphere buildingly wise (Real game terms, yes >_>)

OT: "Ico with zombies". So long as i don't have to play the game as the mom and lead Amy around by the freakin' hand all the time, or vice versa, that actually doesn't sound too bad.

Hmm IGN gave it a 2. Obviously a good premise, but the gameplay shown in the reviews I've seen of it looked horribly clunky and downright awful. Doesn't seem to have the 'Deadly Premonition' charm to make up for it either.

DeManix:
Hmm IGN gave it a 2. Obviously a good premise, but the gameplay they showed in the review looked downright awful.

It's not. This game is another reminder of why I don't give a fuck about what reviewers say. I bought the game, found it to be well worth its asking price, and then some. The problem is that once early reviews start bashing a game, the rest jump onboard for fear of looking like they're defending a mediocre game, rather than, you know, judging a game by themselves. Some of the criticism I've seen aimed at this game in particular is downright stupid, like the checkpoint system. I understand Mr. Reviewer might not have the time for anything other than a checkpoint every 5 seconds, but personaly, I like the incentive to be extra-careful, as I am a firm believer that death in games SHOULD penalize the player, especialy when the game in question is survival-horror.

But, you know... I think Vita Chambers in Bioshock are a stupid idea, so what do I know? Opinions are just opinions.

Too many recommendation quotes...

That always seems a little bit desperate to me.

Still think it'd have been better with Amy Pond.

Ulquiorra4sama:

Asuka Soryu:
Also, that trailer left me confused, and barely showed any game play. I'm tired of trailers where they show no game play and just freaking cut scenes.

Which is the reason why after Dead Island screwed so many people over that instead of jumping to any conclusions about this i'll instead wait for some gameplay trailers because initially it seems like this game might be an interesting one setting/atmosphere buildingly wise (Real game terms, yes >_>)

OT: "Ico with zombies". So long as i don't have to play the game as the mom and lead Amy around by the freakin' hand all the time, or vice versa, that actually doesn't sound too bad.

Does the concept of waiting for actual gameplay to come out confuse anyone? This is asked, as since the game [Dead Island] came out last year, people have done nothing more than bellyache in every topic ,considering zombies, about how they felt baited-and-switched by the first trailer for the game. They speak as if there were never any trailers demonstrating gameplay.

In this trailer from G4 in June, one can see a demonstration of gameplay.
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/53271/dead-island-live-e3-gameplay-demo/

Even before that, one could've obtained information about the game's mechanics from this article from IGN. They even possess several previous articles covering the game since 2007.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/115/1150368p1.html

The fact that people continue to moan and groan about some betrayal on the part of the developers of Dead Island is quite irritating.

This doesn't just apply to Dead Island. When the trailer for The Last of Us came out, people wouldn't stop making statements about what the game is and isn't. In one of G4's Feedback videos, they go on and on about a game that they know nothing about except the fact that it exists. In Yahtzee's Top 5 of 2011, he even makes a little snark about the Dead Island trailer.

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/719375/feedback-star-wars-the-old-republic-the-mmo-you-are-looking-for/

So tell me, do people have the right to feel betrayed when there was assuredly information concerning Dead Island's actual gameplay?

Do people understand games are neither movies nor shows?

Do people understand that a bait and switch in gaming means getting a first person shooter when the game was shown previously to be a third person shooter? Or, as another example, being told that a game is open-ended when in fact it's linear, such as Alan Wake? (Yes I know switching development to the 360 was the cause of that)

Did you get excited for Amy after hearing of concept or after watching several videos concerning the mechanics of the game?

This last question is very important, as the desire for an emotional zombie game seems to stem more for people's desire for a movie than a game.

The only problem with this sort of game is that if you lose because the girl dies even once, all tension will be lost forever. It's just like 'oh well that's what happens' *restart*. I wish games would stop focusing on gimmicks.

TheHappySquid:
The only problem with this sort of game is that if you lose because the girl dies even once, all tension will be lost forever. It's just like 'oh well that's what happens' *restart*. I wish games would stop focusing on gimmicks.

No, it's not. One of the main "complaints" about the game is that it punishes death or failure too harshly. You WANT to keep Amy safe, and you WANT to stay out of trouble. And as the game progresses, you do it because you grow to care.

I'm playing Amy right now and I love it. Glad I got it on release day.

Melondrupe:
-Snipping hard-

It's not so much the lack off gameplay that was shown off, but rather the lack of focus on the gameplay trailers for Dead Island that got me a bit upset about it all (nowhere near a point where i felt "betrayed"). I mean, i don't mind a cinematic trailer or whatever, but don't let that be the main focus of your marketing campaign because if you do then you WILL end up with a lot of people feeling like they got robbed because of the cinematic trailer not being very similar to the gameplay.

I think Dead Island simply made people (myself included) a lot more weary of jumping to conclusions about trailers that don't show gameplay because we've now seen the enormous gap that can be there and don't wanna fall into it again.

Iwata:

TheHappySquid:
The only problem with this sort of game is that if you lose because the girl dies even once, all tension will be lost forever. It's just like 'oh well that's what happens' *restart*. I wish games would stop focusing on gimmicks.

No, it's not. One of the main "complaints" about the game is that it punishes death or failure too harshly. You WANT to keep Amy safe, and you WANT to stay out of trouble. And as the game progresses, you do it because you grow to care.

In what way too harshly? I can't seem to care for such an annoying looking child. This is just Katey Greene all over again except you have to drag her around everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I like kids, and Ico was amazing, but this kid just looks like a bad idea. Survival horror where you have to protect someone? Seriously? That's pretty much a sure-fire recipe to remove the 'horror' side of things. Real survival horror should be a solo effort.

TheHappySquid:

Iwata:

TheHappySquid:
The only problem with this sort of game is that if you lose because the girl dies even once, all tension will be lost forever. It's just like 'oh well that's what happens' *restart*. I wish games would stop focusing on gimmicks.

No, it's not. One of the main "complaints" about the game is that it punishes death or failure too harshly. You WANT to keep Amy safe, and you WANT to stay out of trouble. And as the game progresses, you do it because you grow to care.

In what way too harshly? I can't seem to care for such an annoying looking child. This is just Katey Greene all over again except you have to drag her around everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I like kids, and Ico was amazing, but this kid just looks like a bad idea. Survival horror where you have to protect someone? Seriously? That's pretty much a sure-fire recipe to remove the 'horror' side of things. Real survival horror should be a solo effort.

I don't think it's that formulaic... perhaps survival-horror, the tag itself, is the problem.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Still think it'd have been better with Amy Pond.

I was thinking the same honestly. Also I liked the last recommendation quote at the end We shout in capital letters because it's EXCITING!

Game seems interesting if not vaguely pedophiliac due to the main character being approx 6 years old. I also saw something I dislike already and that is escort missions.

Baresark:
But it should be good if the AI isn't retarded, which is usually what kills escort missions.

There's some really bad humor in this statement. Because...well...according to the publisher, Amy is autistic, so...err...

Man there's no way to not be offensives here...

Anyways, I am encouraged. This looks wonderful, and the core gameplay mechanics seem to be an enforcement of some properly mature themes. Dead Island never showed mechanics in its famous trailer. But assuming this game is truly about protecting and in turn relying on a defenseless autistic girl...that's the kind of brave core concept that makes me forgive a lot of faults. Maybe zombies will help push the artistic merit to a wider market. Ill get it when it comes to PC.

Hmmm, where I have heard of a third-person survival horror game set in fairly dark corridors in third person perspective fighting shambling zombie-mutant things with gory attacks before?

Oh yeah, Dead Space! So, this is basically Dead Space set on Earth with escort missions. Why do people keep saying it's so original? Beats the shit out of me. I watched the whole thing and walked away unimpressed.

As a cynic, I've learned to look past the parts where the previews shout praise and look at the game being shown. And when I did, all I saw was Dead Space: Earth Escort Mission Pack DLC. Please tell me I am not the only one who sees this. X-(

PurpleLeafRave:
This looks good! Having a little girl must make you feel really vulnerable.

I really doubt it, since you can fight. You want to know a game where you're vulnerable? Check out Penumbra: Overture or Amnesia: The Dark Descent. I've only played Penumbra: Overture and only got a little bit in (after turning on the generator) and let me tell you, that game is scarier than being chased by an elephant who wants to sodomize you.

..... Um, yeah, my point may have gotten lost in that analogy, but basically five guys ... JUST FIVE PEOPLE ... with a shoe-string budget were able to make a game with, in all reality, just-passable graphics and, with lighting, sound and music, made it incredibly scary. It took millions of bucks and a whole team of people to make AMY and I'm not impressed.

Basically, AMY is going the "Scary monster isn't hiding in the closet and is going 'ABLOOGIE-WOOGIE-WOO!' at the end of a bright hallway" route and I don't care for it. (e-cookie to anyone who gets the reference.) It might surprise the shit out of me, but I doubt it.

Saw the first 18 minutes of AMY's gameplay - Shockingly bad performance (Screen tear up the ass, FPS dropping all the time) early Playstation 2 graphics, boring aesthetics, terrible animations (just fucking awful, like watching thunderbirds), I was only watching and it LOOKED hard to control, Tedius gameplay, shit combat...I mean good fucking God I wont even attempt to critique the plot that was presented.

And then IGN gave it a 2, confirming I was not alone in my objections and they repeated the same problems and then some. IGN might not be 100% accurate all the time, they give a lot of 8.5's but they give below-4's less often for console titles than they give perfect 10's.

Amy is their lowest rated game on the PS3, 3 points less than the second worst game on the PS3

Same goes for Xbox 360 (which it wasn't reviewed on but they rarely change scores that much across platforms)

in IGN's entire history they have only ever reviewed 70 games, across all platforms including handhelds and phones, which they consider worse than Amy. That's 16 years of games and only 70 are seen as worse. Say what you will about IGN in general, but they don't give out 2's lightly.

For balance I looked up a review which is completely unaffiliated with Game reviewing circles, IE a review for a free newspaper they put on public transport; The Metro. They gave it a 1/10.

I'm very glad I did not waste money on this game

Asuka Soryu:
Sweet, a Zombie game. Those are rarely ever made or ever seen....................................................................................

Also, that trailer left me confused, and barely showed any game play. I'm tired of trailers where they show no game play and just freaking cut scenes.

You realise how trailers work right? They do the teasers, then when the game gets closer they have actual gameplay trailer?

Did someone say Dead Island? Oh, that was me...

So it's a third person shooter? Puzzle game? Train Sim? Platformer with crowbar?
Yay! Half Life 3 is here!!!

Sarcasm aside, I'm not holding my breath. It's reminding me too much of Dead Island.

Xanadu84:

Baresark:
But it should be good if the AI isn't retarded, which is usually what kills escort missions.

There's some really bad humor in this statement. Because...well...according to the publisher, Amy is autistic, so...err...

Man there's no way to not be offensives here...

Anyways, I am encouraged. This looks wonderful, and the core gameplay mechanics seem to be an enforcement of some properly mature themes. Dead Island never showed mechanics in its famous trailer. But assuming this game is truly about protecting and in turn relying on a defenseless autistic girl...that's the kind of brave core concept that makes me forgive a lot of faults. Maybe zombies will help push the artistic merit to a wider market. Ill get it when it comes to PC.

OH, and the killer. IGN reviewed it today, 2.0... ouch. Apparently the controls are so fidgety and frustrating you will spend stupid amounts of time replaying areas. And the checkpoints are so far in between you will go insane replaying 20 minute long sections of the game again and again just trying to figure out what you did wrong. So, I guess it's a fail. Which really sucks. I love a good, true survival horror game.

Baresark:

Xanadu84:

Baresark:
But it should be good if the AI isn't retarded, which is usually what kills escort missions.

There's some really bad humor in this statement. Because...well...according to the publisher, Amy is autistic, so...err...

Man there's no way to not be offensives here...

Anyways, I am encouraged. This looks wonderful, and the core gameplay mechanics seem to be an enforcement of some properly mature themes. Dead Island never showed mechanics in its famous trailer. But assuming this game is truly about protecting and in turn relying on a defenseless autistic girl...that's the kind of brave core concept that makes me forgive a lot of faults. Maybe zombies will help push the artistic merit to a wider market. Ill get it when it comes to PC.

OH, and the killer. IGN reviewed it today, 2.0... ouch. Apparently the controls are so fidgety and frustrating you will spend stupid amounts of time replaying areas. And the checkpoints are so far in between you will go insane replaying 20 minute long sections of the game again and again just trying to figure out what you did wrong. So, I guess it's a fail. Which really sucks. I love a good, true survival horror game.

1- IGN? Really? You still value a word they have to say? I know I already said I don't listen to reviewers, but even if I did, IGN and Gamespot are the most dubious, ignorant, bandwagon-enabling sites available.

2- As I mentioned before, reviewers who complain about checkpoints are idiots. By that standard, Demon's Souls would be the worst game in existence.

Ah, well... indeed a pity that people still listen to these things rather than giving it a try and judging it for themselves. I invested 10 bucks in it, and I am by no means disapointed.

Iwata:
snip

1- IGN? Really? You still value a word they have to say? I know I already said I don't listen to reviewers, but even if I did, IGN and Gamespot are the most dubious, ignorant, bandwagon-enabling sites available.

2- As I mentioned before, reviewers who complain about checkpoints are idiots. By that standard, Demon's Souls would be the worst game in existence.

Ah, well... indeed a pity that people still listen to these things rather than giving it a try and judging it for themselves. I invested 10 bucks in it, and I am by no means disapointed.

I would agree with you if had gotten a 5 or a 6. But a 2 is pretty damning. I mean, that isn't the outcome of a review not being bought. I mean, I'm gonna wait for other people to review it, but I don't think you are going to get a very big score disparity. We'll see though. I really want this game to be good because I haven't played a good survival horror game since Amnesia.

Edit: Eurogamer gave it the same score. But explained it better. The checkpoint thing for this guy could wipe an hour of gameplay. The checkpoints are only active while playing so you can't quit mid level without losing all of the progress. Dying eliminates your entire inventory. The camera is horrible. If you get hit in combat you are essentially dead, but you are fighting the camera more than the enemies. The controls don't work right. It's pretty bad it would seem.

Baresark:

Iwata:
snip

1- IGN? Really? You still value a word they have to say? I know I already said I don't listen to reviewers, but even if I did, IGN and Gamespot are the most dubious, ignorant, bandwagon-enabling sites available.

2- As I mentioned before, reviewers who complain about checkpoints are idiots. By that standard, Demon's Souls would be the worst game in existence.

Ah, well... indeed a pity that people still listen to these things rather than giving it a try and judging it for themselves. I invested 10 bucks in it, and I am by no means disapointed.

I would agree with you if had gotten a 5 or a 6. But a 2 is pretty damning. I mean, that isn't the outcome of a review not being bought. I mean, I'm gonna wait for other people to review it, but I don't think you are going to get a very big score disparity. We'll see though. I really want this game to be good because I haven't played a good survival horror game since Amnesia.

Edit: Eurogamer gave it the same score. But explained it better. The checkpoint thing for this guy could wipe an hour of gameplay. The checkpoints are only active while playing so you can't quit mid level without losing all of the progress. Dying eliminates your entire inventory. The camera is horrible. If you get hit in combat you are essentially dead, but you are fighting the camera more than the enemies. The controls don't work right. It's pretty bad it would seem.

Having played both, I can say with certainty that it's not as good as Amnesia, by any means. but it is not a trainwreck, either. If I had payed 60 bucks for it, sure, I guess I'd feel a bit miffed, but for a 10 buck game?! It's a bargain.

Iwata:

Baresark:

Iwata:
snip

1- IGN? Really? You still value a word they have to say? I know I already said I don't listen to reviewers, but even if I did, IGN and Gamespot are the most dubious, ignorant, bandwagon-enabling sites available.

2- As I mentioned before, reviewers who complain about checkpoints are idiots. By that standard, Demon's Souls would be the worst game in existence.

Ah, well... indeed a pity that people still listen to these things rather than giving it a try and judging it for themselves. I invested 10 bucks in it, and I am by no means disapointed.

I would agree with you if had gotten a 5 or a 6. But a 2 is pretty damning. I mean, that isn't the outcome of a review not being bought. I mean, I'm gonna wait for other people to review it, but I don't think you are going to get a very big score disparity. We'll see though. I really want this game to be good because I haven't played a good survival horror game since Amnesia.

Edit: Eurogamer gave it the same score. But explained it better. The checkpoint thing for this guy could wipe an hour of gameplay. The checkpoints are only active while playing so you can't quit mid level without losing all of the progress. Dying eliminates your entire inventory. The camera is horrible. If you get hit in combat you are essentially dead, but you are fighting the camera more than the enemies. The controls don't work right. It's pretty bad it would seem.

Having played both, I can say with certainty that it's not as good as Amnesia, by any means. but it is not a trainwreck, either. If I had payed 60 bucks for it, sure, I guess I'd feel a bit miffed, but for a 10 buck game?! It's a bargain.

Well then, if you are happy with it, I'll consider that a recommendation and when I get paid next, I'll pick it up.

Iwata:

Baresark:

Xanadu84:

There's some really bad humor in this statement. Because...well...according to the publisher, Amy is autistic, so...err...

Man there's no way to not be offensives here...

Anyways, I am encouraged. This looks wonderful, and the core gameplay mechanics seem to be an enforcement of some properly mature themes. Dead Island never showed mechanics in its famous trailer. But assuming this game is truly about protecting and in turn relying on a defenseless autistic girl...that's the kind of brave core concept that makes me forgive a lot of faults. Maybe zombies will help push the artistic merit to a wider market. Ill get it when it comes to PC.

OH, and the killer. IGN reviewed it today, 2.0... ouch. Apparently the controls are so fidgety and frustrating you will spend stupid amounts of time replaying areas. And the checkpoints are so far in between you will go insane replaying 20 minute long sections of the game again and again just trying to figure out what you did wrong. So, I guess it's a fail. Which really sucks. I love a good, true survival horror game.

1- IGN? Really? You still value a word they have to say? I know I already said I don't listen to reviewers, but even if I did, IGN and Gamespot are the most dubious, ignorant, bandwagon-enabling sites available.

2- As I mentioned before, reviewers who complain about checkpoints are idiots. By that standard, Demon's Souls would be the worst game in existence.

Ah, well... indeed a pity that people still listen to these things rather than giving it a try and judging it for themselves. I invested 10 bucks in it, and I am by no means disapointed.

I don't buy either viewpoint. Reviews show trends, and are valuable. But a game shooting for the kind of thing Amy is ostensibly trying will be polarizing, and its strengths may be nebulous. Even from IGN, I suspect that the controls are tricky and the checkpoint system frusterating. But with more reviews, a may also find that those traditional weaknesses are in service to a larger game dynamic, and I can forgive lack of polish in a game that dares to be brave. I can learn from negative reviews and not be completely dependent on them.

I am irritated by this mentality that reviewers cant be helpful. By that logic, if there is no objective measure of quality, then there is no craft in game design. If its all subjective, then Portal is the same quality as Duke Nukem Forever. Reviewers are single data points. And there are biases present. Buti f that discredited reviewers as a whole, you are also dismissing everything from psychology to sociology to economics. More often, people dismiss reviewers because they don't like it when a reviewer respresents a common opinion that the individual happens to have an odd personal taste over. Better to learn that its okay to have an odd taste in something. We all do, and a reviewer doesn't degrade that. And we hold on to grudges longer then we acknowledge agreement.

Xanadu84:

Iwata:

Baresark:

OH, and the killer. IGN reviewed it today, 2.0... ouch. Apparently the controls are so fidgety and frustrating you will spend stupid amounts of time replaying areas. And the checkpoints are so far in between you will go insane replaying 20 minute long sections of the game again and again just trying to figure out what you did wrong. So, I guess it's a fail. Which really sucks. I love a good, true survival horror game.

1- IGN? Really? You still value a word they have to say? I know I already said I don't listen to reviewers, but even if I did, IGN and Gamespot are the most dubious, ignorant, bandwagon-enabling sites available.

2- As I mentioned before, reviewers who complain about checkpoints are idiots. By that standard, Demon's Souls would be the worst game in existence.

Ah, well... indeed a pity that people still listen to these things rather than giving it a try and judging it for themselves. I invested 10 bucks in it, and I am by no means disapointed.

I am irritated by this mentality that reviewers cant be helpful. By that logic, if there is no objective measure of quality, then there is no craft in game design. If its all subjective, then Portal is the same quality as Duke Nukem Forever. Reviewers are single data points. And there are biases present. Buti f that discredited reviewers as a whole, you are also dismissing everything from psychology to sociology to economics. More often, people dismiss reviewers because they don't like it when a reviewer respresents a common opinion that the individual happens to have an odd personal taste over. Better to learn that its okay to have an odd taste in something. We all do, and a reviewer doesn't degrade that. And we hold on to grudges longer then we acknowledge agreement.

You are looking far, far too much into it. The simple fact of the matter is that a review is subjective to the reviewers' own personal opinion, which may have little to nothing in common with my own, and industry trends. I don't bother with reviews simply because I know for a fact that I would, as previously mentioned, be missing out on games that I know I would value far more than many, if not most of those that are considered "good".

ok, it looks interesting. looks like it has a twisted story when the mother suddenly looks like a zombie after she hugs the girl. this looked creepy.
checked steam and nothing came up. does it mean the pc version will come later or what?

found this on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnE3uBa9S5M&feature=sh_e_se&list=SL
and he also said that the controls are clunky but he is so far happy with the game. he is playing the xbox version.
from what i have seen, you have to use stealth and at times you had to fight. but thats just the beginning of the game.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here