Critical Horror Story, Amy, Patched

Critical Horror Story, Amy, Patched

image

Though unless this new patch introduces some really sweeping changes, the game may still be on track for that "worst game of the year" award.

I can't think of a pithy way to describe how fundamentally terrible Amy actually is. According to Metacritic, of the game's 35 professional reviews, 33 are negative. The other two are "mixed."Our own Susan Arendt, who hasn't been the same since her fateful encounter with the game - there's a glossy look to her eyes now, like she's seen too much - claimed that players would have "more fun just setting [their] ten dollars on fire."

While a large proportion of the criticism focused on Amy's (terrible) core design, there was more than a little critical grumbling about the game's numerous bugs, glitches and outright broken features. Today developer, Vector Cell, announced a major patch for the game.

Here's a list of the changes the patch implements:

  • The last checkpoint you reach is now saved (instead of going back to the beginning of the chapter)
  • The syringes remain in the inventory after a checkpoint is reached
  • Amy's Powers remain available after a checkpoint is reached
  • The Combat camera has been removed
  • Most sequences can now be skipped
  • The in-game brightness has been improved

The patch will apparently make the notorious Chapter Five, which I understand is a terrible place where hope and dreams go to die, "much easier."

A case of a developer desperately spit-shining a turd? Perhaps, but it's not unreasonable to expect developers to fix their broken games, regardless of popularity or quality.

Source: Facebook

Permalink

You have to respect them taking the time to patch something which has already tanked.

Eh... remember the first time when all this was still hot and all the rage? The developer just said if the game was hard, it was because you sucked at it and not because of any developer fault.

This would be him silently sticking his foot in his mouth while everyone is focused on Mass Effect 3.

cursedseishi:
The developer just said if the game was hard, it was because you sucked at it and not because of any developer fault.

This is literally all that I remember of this game.
And that everyone said it was shit. The two sort of go hand in hand though.

I really wish you'd stayed in Beta

hazabaza1:

cursedseishi:
The developer just said if the game was hard, it was because you sucked at it and not because of any developer fault.

This is literally all that I remember of this game.
And that everyone said it was shit. The two sort of go hand in hand though.

Jim did an episode about this a while back when the creator of Aquaphobia told him he hadn't played her game properly either. Between this, On-Disk DLC and the war on used games, I'm thinking that it's the developers that are really the entitled ones.

Matthew94:
You have to respect them taking the time to patch something which has already tanked.

I think the game is doing ok sales wise.

JohnDoey:

Matthew94:
You have to respect them taking the time to patch something which has already tanked.

I think the game is doing ok sales wise.

I meant review wise, I doubt sales were good after launch. Pre-release hype can only do so much.

Jeez, fixing things gamers hated about the game? Way to set the medium back a decade, guys!

cursedseishi:
Eh... remember the first time when all this was still hot and all the rage?

Actually, no. I remember the "the game is fine, you suck" comments, but not Amy being "the rage."

DVS BSTrD:
Jim did an episode about this a while back when the creator of Aquaphobia told him he hadn't played her game properly either. Between this, On-Disk DLC and the war on used games, I'm thinking that it's the developers that are really the entitled ones.

I think the fact that they believe they are entitled to used game money is enough proof as it is.

(Edited to fix quote boxes)

cursedseishi:
Eh... remember the first time when all this was still hot and all the rage? The developer just said if the game was hard, it was because you sucked at it and not because of any developer fault.

This would be him silently sticking his foot in his mouth while everyone is focused on Mass Effect 3.

Best time to do it. Not going to change a damn thing though.

Soak your ten dollars in a mix of alcohol and water and you can burn it and still spend it afterwards.

EDIT:Wrong thread mods please delete.

Matthew94:
You have to respect them taking the time to patch something which has already tanked.

True, this does mean that they've nudged their way past Sega in terms of respectability. Not that this was a high bar, mind you.

Johnson McGee:
Soak your ten dollars in a mix of alcohol and water and you can burn it and still spend it afterwards.

What's more, if you are really quick, this means that you can actually give the $10 to Vector Cell while it's still on fire. That may be the most fun choice of all.

DVS BSTrD:
I really wish you'd stayed in Beta

hazabaza1:

cursedseishi:
The developer just said if the game was hard, it was because you sucked at it and not because of any developer fault.

This is literally all that I remember of this game.
And that everyone said it was shit. The two sort of go hand in hand though.

Jim did an episode about this a while back when the creator of Aquaphobia told him he hadn't played her game properly either. Between this, On-Disk DLC and the war on used games, I'm thinking that it's the developers that are really the entitled ones.

I couldn't agree more with you, it seems to be a growing trend of developers and publishers to almost attack their market for criticizing their game (and crying over 'lost revenue' when they now almost monopolize the market). kinda reminds me of the artists on DA who cant take a suggestion well and abuse the critic (which is kinda petty really).

I'd really like to believe this would be like the patch for hydrophobia. The one that came along and essentially fixed damn near everything.

But it's not. For two reasons.

1: Hydrophobia was released good but flawed.
2: It won't fix the controls, the stupid running around finding blood samples, the fact that the entire game is an escort mission.

Once they iron out the bugs, redo the visual effects, rework the camera, redesign the levels and change the core mechanics, AMY will be great! I'm certain this patch will sort all that out.

Yeah, it's nice that they fixed some of the REALLY bad issues, but it still won't make the game fun or enjoyable. Still, glad to see that they care enough about their product that they went back and fixed it.

Fuck yeah! AMY isn't all that bad, guys. I really don't get the univeral blowback that it created. It looks like this patch is fixing just about everything right up. But hey, not everyone likes these kind of games. The survival-horror-zombie-can-live-with-escort-missions-especially-when-they're-done-better-than-RE4 fans not the bad game fans.

Even though the developer clearly disagreed with the blowback too you know what he's doing? He's fixing it, he's even outright changing (skipping sequences, assuming NOT cutscenes) things too. All for you =)

You know who won't be doing that?

Oh yeah, I went there. The tiny developer that everyone lashed out against and bashed cares for you more than the mega-super devs who got the perfect scores and despite their tiny setbacks will still be rolling in fans for years to come. Life is a bitch, huh?

Edit: And that's not really fair, Susan. Are there any other science geeks in here? I can think of some pretty interesting and fun ways to set 10 dollars on fire. Are we talking 1 ten dollar bill or 10 ones because that would make a huge difference. We could make a chain reaction of burning dollar bills! Burn them in different colors! Burn them into crazy patterns! The possiblities are endless!

Science!!!

I am the only person in the world who thought this game was pretty cool. The camera was a bit weird, but it's an OK game. I'm glad to hear that they are patching it.

But doesn't this destroy the developers' "artistic intergirty"? I mean fixing broken stuff in a game, because people hated on it... the nerve!

inzesky:
But doesn't this destroy the developers' "artistic intergirty"? I mean fixing broken stuff in a game, because people hated on it... the nerve!

I'm going to assume you're lol-ing but I think "artisitic intergirty" can be overlooked with how easy it is to throw a patch or an update onto games these days - much easier than re-releasing a book or movie. It would behoove them not to stick to that loosely defined stickler. If done right (and I wouldn't say this is wrong) it gives them more integrity without interfering with that "artistic" part.

Flailing Escapist:
If done right (and I wouldn't say this is wrong) it gives them more integrity without interfering with that "artistic" part.

I agree completely. I'm just fascinated with the general hypocrisy of the gaming media in relation to their recent portrayal of those "whiny, entitled" Mass Effect fanboys who wanted a better ending to Mass Effect, as opposed to Amy's developers who clearly "caved" and made their game easier which is in direct contrast to earlier statements about their design philosophy. I mean isn't this setting a precedent as well?

inzesky:

Flailing Escapist:
If done right (and I wouldn't say this is wrong) it gives them more integrity without interfering with that "artistic" part.

I agree completely. I'm just fascinated with the general hypocrisy of the gaming media in relation to their recent portrayal of those "whiny, entitled" Mass Effect fanboys who wanted a better ending to Mass Effect, as opposed to Amy's developers who clearly "caved" and made their game easier which is in direct contrast to earlier statements about their design philosophy. I mean isn't this setting a precedent as well?

Maybe, maybe not here. The appeal group for AMY is pretty small and even though this patch will change the dev's original idea that group will still be pretty small so I can't blame them for "mainstreaming" it. But "artist" are always changing in ideals and goals. And they should if they realize they missed something or it makes them see their product in a different view.

I don't think "artistic integrity" can exist in a competative market, anyway.

rolfwesselius:
EDIT:Wrong thread mods please delete.

Seemed like the right thread as it was a direct response to me. Of course, it was a fairy tale, but I'm not sure "obscene falsehood" would fit in any thread.

inzesky:

Flailing Escapist:
If done right (and I wouldn't say this is wrong) it gives them more integrity without interfering with that "artistic" part.

I agree completely. I'm just fascinated with the general hypocrisy of the gaming media in relation to their recent portrayal of those "whiny, entitled" Mass Effect fanboys who wanted a better ending to Mass Effect, as opposed to Amy's developers who clearly "caved" and made their game easier which is in direct contrast to earlier statements about their design philosophy. I mean isn't this setting a precedent as well?

That's different because...Ummm..Because ponies!

No, but seriously, I very much agree with the hypocrisy. The major difference is there is no established fanbase to apologise for Amy.

Under Capcoms standars they still have 3 or 4 re-releases before the final one.

Grey Carter:

  • Most sequences can now be skipped
  • First they tell us we aren't playing the game right, now they they tell us we don't even have to play it.

    It's still Escort Quest: The Game. There's no amount of patching that can change that, or make me ever want to play this 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
    Registered for a free account here