FMF2 still needs some gameplay improvements

[GamerX]

I´ve checked out the EA Version of "Forgive Me Father 2" and liked it so far. Especially the gunplay is a lot better than it was in part 1.
However, it seems to suffer the same issues like the first game.
In order to improve gameplay / the overall experience, I would recommend to work on the following aspects:

- There should be more interactivity within the levels and - of course - more secrets (Why not letting the playing open drawers / wardrobes / hidden doors in order to find items?). I know, this would mean a lot more work for the devs, but you shouldn´t underestimate it, because it creates a much higher level of immersion for the player.

- Even if the thematic variation in visual level design is really good, many levels feel uninspired and dull. Find key, push lever, get ambushed by bigger mob, find key, push lever and so on. Check out Cultic, Dusk or Hrot, these games have much better level design.

- There doesn´t seem to be a "thematic classification" of enemies, that means, as soon as you encounter a new enemy type, it will appear in all other levels as well. Other boomer shooters (and of course the classic FPS titles) do this as well, but here, it feels very odd, because many enemy types seem to be highly related to a specific location / theme.

- There has to be some gore in these games, but here it´s over the top for me. Cultic does it better.

I really think that "Forgive me Father 2" could get a phenomenal boomer shooter (same height as Dusk, Amid Evil, Hrot, Turbo Overkill or Prodeus), however, it still needs some improvements.

Looking forward to the final product!

[TheMikirog]

Honestly I barely noticed the difference between FMF2 and HROT/Cultic in terms of level design besides the fact that both are confident in you getting lost for half an hour, which is horribly outdated in this day and age imo. All of them feature key hunting, switches, secrets and bigger fights on the regular, it's just that FMF2 respects my time much more than all the other games. I never felt FMF2 needed to have Half-Life:Alyx levels of prop interaction and collectibles, since it's a retro shooter through and through, despite putting more effort into the presentation and being more accessible to non-retro shooter folk.

[Black Knight]

Agree with "thematic classification". Those henchmen are everywhere. City (makes sense), sanctuary (much less sense)...

[Vesperas]

I don't agree with any of the points being made but I do agree FMF 2 could use some gameplay improvements.

The lack of destructible items within the levels and plodding pace compared to the original game are massive steps in the wrong direction, in my opinion. I didn't even make it through the entire first level because it honestly just felt like a slog.

[TheMikirog]

Originally posted by Vesperas:

I don't agree with any of the points being made but I do agree FMF 2 could use some gameplay improvements.

The lack of destructible items within the levels and plodding pace compared to the original game are massive steps in the wrong direction, in my opinion. I didn't even make it through the entire first level because it honestly just felt like a slog.

You want something more fast paced like the first game, while this game doesn't feel like it tries to go this route honestly. Because of the slower movement speed and overhauled combat, it's kind of unfair to compare both games on the premise of them trying to do the same thing in terms of combat pacing and dynamics.

FMF2 I feel is trying to be a slower, more immersive game, where being overwhelmed, getting hit, or going in unprepared is much more common. That doesn't mean the fights themselves aren't fast, but instead of running like a sportsman (which is still necessary in places), it's more about paying attention to multiple things at once, knowing when to move in, where everyone is hiding, juggling ammo, which weapons to use, prioritizing targets and hitting those shots. If we view the game through that lens, the game accomplishes that goal, being an interesting and unique middle ground between retro shooter and survival horror. Also worth noting, there are big arena fights of the old variety, these are not gone. The Cathedral level is a standout in this regard, since it's mostly comprised of them.

Although I do agree that the game doesn't have as many destructible items, I hope the second game relies more on more varied things that you can crush and not just spraying cardboard boxes everywhere and calling it a day, which the first game is guilty of. It was either that or bones. I think this area can be improved, because even the first game wasn't that good in this regard.

[Vesperas]

Originally posted by TheMikirog:

Originally posted by Vesperas:

I don't agree with any of the points being made but I do agree FMF 2 could use some gameplay improvements.

The lack of destructible items within the levels and plodding pace compared to the original game are massive steps in the wrong direction, in my opinion. I didn't even make it through the entire first level because it honestly just felt like a slog.

You want something more fast paced like the first game, while this game doesn't feel like it tries to go this route honestly. Because of the slower movement speed and overhauled combat, it's kind of unfair to compare both games on the premise of them trying to do the same thing in terms of combat pacing and dynamics.

FMF2 I feel is trying to be a slower, more immersive game, where being overwhelmed, getting hit, or going in unprepared is much more common. That doesn't mean the fights themselves aren't fast, but instead of running like a sportsman (which is still necessary in places), it's more about paying attention to multiple things at once, knowing when to move in, where everyone is hiding, juggling ammo, which weapons to use, prioritizing targets and hitting those shots. If we view the game through that lens, the game accomplishes that goal, being an interesting and unique middle ground between retro shooter and survival horror. Also worth noting, there are big arena fights of the old variety, these are not gone. The Cathedral level is a standout in this regard, since it's mostly comprised of them.

Although I do agree that the game doesn't have as many destructible items, I hope the second game relies more on more varied things that you can crush and not just spraying cardboard boxes everywhere and calling it a day, which the first game is guilty of. It was either that or bones. I think this area can be improved, because even the first game wasn't that good in this regard.

Quite frankly, I don't find the combat to be overhauled. The revolver has more "ompf" but otherwise it's not too far off from the original. The wretches still die by falling flat when you slash them with the knife and the fat fish still falls apart when you kill him. The only real appreciable difference was the addition of the 360° sprite angles to enemies. Now they actually look like they're moving around instead of just bouncing up and down like a fishing bobber.

I also found the original to be dripping with atmosphere. There were notes, posters and random objects scattered about everywhere for you to read and a great deal of it was offered with little to no explanation. The presentation of the entire experience really made you question everything and attempt to determine for yourself what was going on.

Meanwhile, FMF 2's combat plays out at a pace slower than Doom 3, while simultaneously also lacking the world interactivity. Your ammo reserve is pitifully low, even compared to the first game (I never understood why developers insist you can only carry a small handful of bullets, apparently for the sake of realism, but then proceed to allow you to carry ten different guns including shotguns and rocket launchers without any issue).

Bottom-line: I have nearly 90 hours on the original FMF. I've probably replayed it about a dozen times across both characters and while there are undeniably a few rough spots or areas which could have used some improvement, I think it's an amazing game overall.

FMF 2 has certainly cranked up the moodiness and that's about it.

The priest, whom once sought his "cousin," before ultimately sacrificing himself to the promise "they will all pay" and descending into an epic battle with the very embodiment of "evil" as depicted in the original FMF, has now been reduced to an asylum patient on a high dose of ziprasidone, shuffling their feet along (just put one foot in front of the other!) and going through the motions in empty environments where everything is glued down in place.

It's not good.

[TheMikirog]

Originally posted by Vesperas:

I also found the original to be dripping with atmosphere. There were notes, posters and random objects scattered about everywhere for you to read and a great deal of it was offered with little to no explanation. The presentation of the entire experience really made you question everything and attempt to determine for yourself what was going on.

Devs mentioned those are coming in the full release, alongside the voice acting. What we have so far is the core gameplay loop. imo it's better they perfect that first and then tackle the story and plot second.

Originally posted by Vesperas:

Meanwhile, FMF 2's combat plays out at a pace slower than Doom 3, while simultaneously also lacking the world interactivity.

Have you played both games? Doom 3 is so much slower than FMF2. You actually move slower than the enemies in Doom.

Originally posted by Vesperas:

FMF 2 has certainly cranked up the moodiness and that's about it.

For me, the shooting and enemy reactions to your shooting was the weakest part of FMF1. For how much the original game does, the moment to moment shooting was not its strong suit. I'm just glad guns actually kick like them this time around.

Originally posted by Vesperas:

The priest, whom once sought his "cousin," before ultimately sacrificing himself to the promise "they will all pay" and descending into an epic battle with the very embodiment of "evil" as depicted in the original FMF, has now been reduced to an asylum patient on a high dose of ziprasidone, shuffling their feet along (just put one foot in front of the other!) and going through the motions in empty environments where everything is glued down in place.

Judging from your response, it's hard to shake off the feeling that you gave up on the first level and didn't complete all 10 levels that the game offers. Especially since the first level has much less ammo than the rest of the levels, does not feature as many bigger fights and does not have as many enemies.

It's there's anything to take away is that FMF1 was just as barebones at Early Access launch as is FMF2 right now, and I got both on day 1. I'm still optimistic the game will grow and might even surpass the original, even in the plot department, considering the letters that we have so far. They're less cryptic, but also more intriguing at the same time.

[Thomas the Gank Engine]

Originally posted by GamerX:

There doesn´t seem to be a "thematic classification" of enemies, that means, as soon as you encounter a new enemy type, it will appear in all other levels as well. Other boomer shooters (and of course the classic FPS titles) do this as well, but here, it feels very odd, because many enemy types seem to be highly related to a specific location / theme.

There is some attempt at this with the basic melee grunts, the asylum version and robed version are the exact same enemy just with a different visual theme (although I have noticed a couple of levels that feature both for some reason).

I wouldn't be surprised if the devs are already planning to add visual variations of other enemy types too.

[Vesperas]

Originally posted by TheMikirog:

Devs mentioned those are coming in the full release, alongside the voice acting. What we have so far is the core gameplay loop. imo it's better they perfect that first and then tackle the story and plot second.

Ugh. Every time I see people talk about gameplay loops in FPS games I want to roll my eyes.

The gameplay offered here in FMF 2 shares the same framework as FMF, it's just slower. That's it.

In other words, if you can beat FMF, there's nothing present in FMF 2 that will prevent you from beating it as well. The gameplay is relatively the same.

1) Navigate levels.
2) Kill enemies.
3) Find keys / switches / secrets.
5) Upgrade special powers.
6) Use special powers strategically.
7) Repeat; beat game.

Originally posted by TheMikirog:

Have you played both games? Doom 3 is so much slower than FMF2. You actually move slower than the enemies in Doom.

Yeah, I wouldn't have drawn the comparison if I had never played it.

I own the original Doom 3 collector's edition (pre-ordered actually, I have the box and everything) and have completed it a number of times. I'd say the normal walking pace in Doom 3 is slightly slower. Doom 3's overall pacing certainly feels slower because you spend a lot of time reading PDA's and interacting with objects, with the majority of the encounters unfolding in close quarters. The enemies are beefier in Doom 3 than FMF, but FMF makes up for it by throwing more enemies at you.

However, Doom 3 allows you to sprint (with infinite stamina in hell) and crouch, which provide the player with far more mobility, overall speed and dynamic positioning than the priest is capable of in FMF 2. There were only a small handful of enemies in Doom 3 that moved faster than the player while sprinting. From memory, it was basically just the pinky demon, maggot and lost soul. Everything else you could easily run circles around, including the imps. I recall being able to dodge the surprise leap attacks performed by imps numerous times. Due to the close quarters nature of encounters in Doom 3, you really needed to have a good balance between cautiousness and the ability to react and move quickly in order to avoid damage.

It was for this reason and FMF 2's new flashlight system that I drew the comparison between the two. It reminded me of Doom 3 (BFG Edition) or Quake 4 (pre-Strogg, post-Strogg you move way faster than the priest).

Originally posted by TheMikirog:

For me, the shooting and enemy reactions to your shooting was the weakest part of FMF1. For how much the original game does, the moment to moment shooting was not its strong suit. I'm just glad guns actually kick like them this time around.

No offense, but have you played FMF? Ignoring the mutations, I don't see much of an appreciable difference.

FMF: Slash wretch with knife > dies > falls flat.

FMF 2: Slash wretch with knife > dies > falls flat.

FMF: Shoot fat fish with pistol in the head > "Headshot" caption appears > dies > falls apart in a gory mess.

FMF 2: Shoot fat fish with pistol in the head > "Headshot" caption appears > dies > falls apart in a gory mess.

Outside of brief, momentary stuns, neither game features much for appreciable pain states.

The impression of impact from the revolver is certainly improved in FMF 2, but not to the exaggerated extent I think many people are making it out to be. There were numerous weapons in FMF with the feeling of power.

Originally posted by TheMikirog:

Judging from your response, it's hard to shake off the feeling that you gave up on the first level and didn't complete all 10 levels that the game offers. Especially since the first level has much less ammo than the rest of the levels, does not feature as many bigger fights and does not have as many enemies.

How is this different from the first one?

I never had a problem with ammo in the first level. I pretty much completed the whole level using just the knife with the exception of the last big fight before the end.

My comment was made as an aside, referring to the total carrying capacity you're allowed.

Originally posted by TheMikirog:

It's there's anything to take away is that FMF1 was just as barebones at Early Access launch as is FMF2 right now, and I got both on day 1. I'm still optimistic the game will grow and might even surpass the original, even in the plot department, considering the letters that we have so far. They're less cryptic, but also more intriguing at the same time.

Agreed.

The problem is, while I like the moodiness and overall artistic direction FMF 2 is headed, it just seems like it moved backward in every other way.

Obviously, I'm not sold on the slower movement speed. It seriously just feels like a slog compared to the original. The lack of interactivity within the levels is another step down.

It even drops the ball on the smallest things, like the lack of actual numbers indicating health and armor remaining. It's mind-boggling.

[TheMikirog]

Originally posted by Vesperas:

No offense, but have you played FMF? Ignoring the mutations, I don't see much of an appreciable difference.

FMF: Slash wretch with knife > dies > falls flat.

FMF 2: Slash wretch with knife > dies > falls flat.

FMF: Shoot fat fish with pistol in the head > "Headshot" caption appears > dies > falls apart in a gory mess.

FMF 2: Shoot fat fish with pistol in the head > "Headshot" caption appears > dies > falls apart in a gory mess.

Outside of brief, momentary stuns, neither game features much for appreciable pain states.

I did play the first FMF, if you've checked my profile and you've seen me in the first game's Discussion boards aswell.

I think that your description of how those two games differ in terms of shooting is surface level and does a disservice to how much work was poured into making the shooting even more satisfying for those that didn't find it satisfying the first time around. I guess it would be worth explaining why people thought the first game's shooting wasn't good and why this one won people over, despite having "little to no changes". Let's compare just the shoot, hit, kill enemies thing that both games have, because while I think it was acceptable in the first game, I knew it could be done better. I'll go into strange levels of detail, so bear with me. The goal here is me trying to understand the changes, highlight them and explain why they help with creating a more satisfying experience, at least to me.

Let's go down the list of the differences:
People thought the guns didn't sound meaty and punchy, especially the revolver. In a typical retro shooter, FMF1's revolver sounds would be another game's pistol sound. It's especially funny, since FMF2's pistol variant that you can unlock sounds like the best auto pistol in gaming, almost like a pocket rifle. How the guns sound is personal preference and while some FMF1's guns sounded good, a lot of them didn't and I think it's down to how often the guns went for pure bass instead of detail. A lot of them sounded bassy, but without anything on the high frequencies that would give these guns definition, presence or punch. I'm talking the actual shooting sounds here, not reloading. Some people love bass, I love bass, but if you only hear bass, everything starts to blend together. I often saw people calling FMF2's sounds as "crunchy" and I have to agree there. Meanwhile, FMF1's gun sounds are called "muddy" due to focus on pure bass. It's especially noticeable with high quality, flat headphones. Not all guns share this problem and I think the plasma rifle upgrade and tormentor are standouts in that game. It's just when the first weapons you get in the game sound weak, it's enough to dismiss the game as unsatisfying and low quality.

Let's talk gore. In the first game, you get a frame by frame overlay that covers the enemy, giving you little sense on what's going on behind that splash and a health bar that drains. And just that. Meanwhile in the second game you have that, but also particle based blood that is randomly splashed, but also gets denser with stronger attacks and also reacts from which direction they got hit. If you gib enemies, they don't get a predefined animation, but their chunks fly all over the place. Try hitting a weak enemy with an explosive off to the side and watch their chunks fly in the direction opposite to the explosion. Killing wretches with a knife just puts them down, but with a shotgun or axe, they straight up explode, not just play an animation, but actually explode. However fat guys can withstand bigger punishment and will gib much easier when you use a double barreled shotgun or explosives, which makes sense, they are tougher to kill, but they're easier to gib if you weaken then with the pistol, knife or friendly fire (yes enemies can hurt each other). All that detail means the gunplay feels more visceral than in the first game. It's not just "more / different blood", but blood that matches what you're doing. In the first game, you can kill someone with a double barrel a mile away and they'll explode. Meanwhile in this game, they die normally, but explode if you get close. Generally each hit and kill is subtly different and adds to the enjoyment. Dynamics is what I think was missing in the first game. Despite killing the same enemy with the same weapon at the same range in both games is technically the same, it "feels" more real in the second game, because of those tiny variations. As a cherry on top, you also have clear sound feedback on when you hit an enemy versus when you kill them, which reminds me of those MMod mods for Half-Life games.

Now let's talk animations and enemy reactions. Here, it feels like the enemies have volume and are three dimensional beings that just happen to be hand drawn. In comparison, the first game can feel like you're fighting cardboard cutouts. There is more to this than just directional sprites and better blood. You touched on stuns already, but I want to take a closer look. The first game's idea of "pain states" is a single frame of animation that does not stun enemies and if you shoot them with an automatic, they have a seizure, which consistently took me out of the experience. Early enemies will also stop moving for split second if they play this one frame animation, but they can still attack and that part is removed when you get to late game enemies that never stop if you shoot at them and might not even have pain states. Compare it to FMF2, where the pain state is a stun that is longer than a single frame and feel more like the original Doom in terms of length and purpose. I also noticed that some enemies like liquidators retaliate immediately after they leave this pain state, even if they just finished their salvo. If I pop out of a corner in the Trenches level and hit them, I have to be careful not to pop back out again in a rhythm or I eat a salvo, I have to pay attention to how the enemies are acting. They seem to be less predictable in this game, which is a good thing. And the last thing, weapons seem to knock back enemies. If the first game does it, I didn't feel it. In the second game, if they don't get gibbed, they'll be flung, especially if using a strong attack. Try exploding a healthy liquidator by shooting at his feet and watch him fly.

And lastly the headshot caption. This one is simple. In the first game, the text appears immediately and slowly fades, while in the second game it's more animated, pops up and disappears much sooner. For me, it has more of an impact without getting in the way.

Let's recap what those games excelled at imo:
First game:
- Frame-by-frame blood when shooting
- Blood splatters on walls
- Gib animations on shotgun and explosive kills (any range)
- Headshot popups
Second game:
- Frame-by-frame blood when shooting
- Blood splatters on walls
- Dynamic blood particles
- Directional sprites
- Noticeable pain states
- Gib animations are replaced with gib particles
- Enemies get knocked back and launched with strong attacks
- Better headshot popups
- Hitsounds / kill sounds

All of these differences and how you glossed over them is not bad in an of itself. It just proves that we value different things in the first game, which is respectable. I wanted more satisfying shooting and I got it, but it doesn't mean your satisfying shooting in the first game is invalid or whatever. It just means it's good enough.

This is what I think FMF2 strives to be. Fixing the weakest parts of the original game, polishing what is already great to an even greater extent while also giving us something closer to the original vision that might not have been fully accomplished the first time around. For now, the second game is less campy and more atmospheric, but we still get funky, strange weapons and both funny, pathetic enemies you can blast through. The core pieces are still there, but remixed into a new experience. I think that's the best case scenario we could've gotten, because it means the first game isn't overshadowed and there's still reasons to come back to it.

I do realize not all people want such detail in their shooting to have a good time. The first FMF stands tall despite its shortcomings, because what it does great, does amazingly and people love it for that, especially the atmosphere and this tight line it walks between gamey fun and grounded immersion. But due to those shortcomings, it would've never stood tall alongside other retro shooter giants for those that have played other retro shooters. Like you said, a lot of elements are missing right now in the second game, but I'm confident we'll get those as the game gets more time in the oven.

Let's not forget that we're both comparing a finished 2022 game to a 10-day old 2023 early access title. If that early access game already surpassed the first in terms of shooting and gore, I think it's on the right track. We just have to wait for the rest and see.

[SuspiciouspegasusTTV]

I miss the different enemy skins on different maps that Forgive me father 1 had, like the liquidators being cops, hospital workers, hazmat suit guys and such, I think even if its the same enemies having those multiple skins is REALLY one thing I want.

I agree I think more environment Interactivity and more in depth secrets like hidden walls and switches. Rather than just go off the beaten path. I kinda like the new slower pace of FMF2, however I do miss the Crucifix and other abillities.

I also hope the weapon variety in the final game is great! Like having a Semi auto shotgun, a semi auto rifle, a bolt action or etc..

[Vesperas]

Originally posted by TheMikirog:

I did play the first FMF, if you've checked my profile and you've seen me in the first game's Discussion boards aswell.

I think that your description of how those two games differ in terms of shooting is surface level and does a disservice to how much work was poured into making the shooting even more satisfying for those that didn't find it satisfying the first time around. I guess it would be worth explaining why people thought the first game's shooting wasn't good and why this one won people over, despite having "little to no changes". Let's compare just the shoot, hit, kill enemies thing that both games have, because while I think it was acceptable in the first game, I knew it could be done better. I'll go into strange levels of detail, so bear with me. The goal here is me trying to understand the changes, highlight them and explain why they help with creating a more satisfying experience, at least to me.

The only disservice is how much praise is being thrown at the sequel over what you, in your own words, describe as being surface level. If the original revolver had sounded beefier and had dropped most enemies in one or two shots as it does here in the sequel, I think my points would be more immediately apparent. Sadly, first impressions are often the strongest.

The inclusion of 360° views on sprites on all enemies and improved weapon feedback are welcome additions. Great, even. I'm just not sure what either of them has to do with the overall speed of gameplay? From my perspective, it seems that overall speed gameplay unfolds was reduced in FMF 2 primarily to accommodate reloading.

The original game featured a well-rounded bestiary; I'd dare say it's nearly on par with the brilliance of the original Doom / Doom 2, even. None of the enemies were especially dangerous when faced alone, but when paired with other enemies, it really forced the player to find a balance between defensive and offensive strategies to deal with the mixed groups.

In many cases, these groups could be downright brutal, so there was far more emphasis on tactical / precision shooting (headshots) and using your special abilities to control the flow of encounters.

Admittedly, my first impressions with the original were not great. I did not know what I was doing and my talent choices kind of sucked. Worse still, I fell into the trap of wanting to save my special abilities, so I relied heavily on my movement. Obviously, this isn't enough later in the game, so my enjoyment inevitably spiraled downward into straight-up frustration with the last two chapters.

So, I took a break from it and upon returning, opted to start over and explore different talents (this was before the respec patch landed). My second go went much better and really transformed my opinion of the entire game.

The reason I'm writing this is because, as someone who has a lot of experience playing retro-styled FPS games, it's easy for me to readily imagine other players feeling the same way or initially being unimpressed with the core gameplay present in the original.

That said, my experience with the sequel so far has been neither good nor bad. It's just so bland by comparison. Simply put, I feel like it's severely lacking in depth compared to the original.

While my criticisms might come off strong, they're not meant to be taken personally or in ways that seem disingenuous or combative toward other people or Byte Barrel. I'm well aware that the game was just released in early access and it will (hopefully) only improve from here.

The point of early access is to gather feedback and refine the core game. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced what's present in the sequel so far is an obvious improvement over the original game. Some things are undeniably better, while others are much less so. My comments are reflections of my overall experience with it so far. Being an early access game and still in development, I'm naturally going to be hyper-critical of it.

I feel like I naturally trend toward looking at things as an ecosystem more than most people and as such, I'm prone to question design choices and challenge assumptions.

For example, the keys in the Cathedral level seemed silly to me. Every single one of them is picked up while normally progressing through the level and done so before you ever encounter their corresponding door.

Simply put, none of the keys or key doors in Cathedral are necessary, so why add them at all?

Another example: In the original game, headshots were exclaimed with the "headshot" caption to cue the player into enemy weaknesses. In most cases, such as with the Liquidators or Fat Fish, these weaknesses represented the most efficient way of dealing with them.

A headshot against a Fat Fish would kill it outright, whereas shooting them in the body would cause them to break apart and their upper torso to slowly crawl after you. In this scenario, the player was forced to either actively avoid their crawling torso until it bled out or shoot them again to finish them off.

Meanwhile, the most efficient way of dealing with the Liquidators was to shoot their tank (displayed as a headshot) and causing them to melt, which would force them to abandon their defensive strategy in favor of blindly rushing you, where you could easily perform another (actual) headshot and finish them.

However, in the sequel, headshots are relatively pointless by comparison. There's no incentive to specifically aim for the head when facing the Fat Fish, and in the case of the Liquidators, it's arguably even less efficient than just shooting them outright because they have increased health in their second form.

So, yes. I agree with you insofar as weapon feedback has been massively improved and for the most part, there's a much greater sense of impact while using them. However, the reduction of player movement speed, overall pace of gameplay, over-simplification of combat and nonsensical / uninspired level design choices present within it, as it's currently presented, severely lowers my opinion of it when compared to the original.

[GamerX]

Originally posted by TheMikirog:

Originally posted by Vesperas:

I also found the original to be dripping with atmosphere. There were notes, posters and random objects scattered about everywhere for you to read and a great deal of it was offered with little to no explanation. The presentation of the entire experience really made you question everything and attempt to determine for yourself what was going on.

I completely disagree here. A fast-paced FPS-game doesn´t need any of these readables at, in fact, I think they are completely missplaced in such a game. For me, it was just annoying in part 1 to stop and read all these notes all the time, most them them didn´t contribute to the story anyway.

Look, we aren´t talking about an immersive sim like Deus Ex, System Shock or Prey here, in these games there has to be a lot of content to read, but not in an old-school FPS. Do you find any readables in Dusk? No. Does it have a good story? Yes.

If the information is important, include it within the cutscenes, otherwise, just leave it out.

I also could think of audio logs (but only a few) like in Bioshock or other ways of environmental storytelling. They don´t slow down gameplay too much.

[Vesperas]

This opinion makes no logical sense, nor is it good game design. The first rule of good story telling is to weave exposition throughout the entire experience. This was something the original game did exceptionally well.

We see this same format for story telling within AMID EVIL, CULTIC and numerous other incredible retro-styled FPS games, and I've never heard anyone complain about it there.

I'm not even sure how placing entirely optional notes or story elements within levels could slow anything down. Are you trying to read them in the middle of fire fights or something? Maybe you should recommend removing secrets as well? I mean, searching for those surely takes more time than reading a few lines of plain text, right?

The gameplay within the sequel is already much slower paced than the original game, with battles being far less intense. Forgive Me Father 2 isn't exactly what I'd call the pinnacle of a fast paced FPS game. In fact, I recall feeling like the music Tim Fialka made barely even fits the action onscreen (specifically, during the Abandoned Tunnels level). The aggressiveness of the music seems over-the-top relative to the plodding pace action unfolds there.

The point is, FMF 2 is clearly going for a more brooding vibe, which can only be improved upon by adding notes and story elements to the levels. Of course, this is in addition to helping with the overall replayability of the game, which it's severely lacking as-is.

[TheMikirog]

This does definitely put your criticisms into context, which is very much appreciated. As someone who has tons of thoughts on the original game, I can see similar kind of drive here.

This kind of made me think about the sequel a bit more. I was actually wondering if FMF2 would benefit more from being a Lovecraft-themed roller coaster ride like the original or something closer to Doom 3. Same with headshots, should they just be cool and have juicy text or should they be strategic and forced onto you if you want to survive? What would I enjoy more? Not every game I've played needed to have mechanics that are purely for game design reasons, rule of cool exists for a reason after all. Hitting heads is satisfying and the hitboxes are generous, I just wonder if there should be a more mechanical reason for landing those besides that "it's satisfying". One thing is for sure, I don't want early game shooting dudes to die in two hits if I hit a body with a revolver, I'd rather have them be harder to kill in other ways, like more of them, them reacting faster, etc, especially now that reloading and shooting is slower.

I've also read other opinions on the first game and generally people just enjoy the satisfactory gunplay and aesthetics, which for some is all they really needed the game to be, even if other elements are subpar in comparison to other games in the genre. I enjoyed the game despite being painfully aware of its flaws, but it's hard for me to revisit it because of those flaws if you catch my drift. Playing the game the first time felt like snacks rather than a big meal. FMF2 in that regard feels much stronger, just because the shooting feels better, is more focused and it's not bogged down by dozens of tiny little things that bring the experience down in the original. Feels like we leveled up from a fast food joint to a local pizzeria or something, but we didn't get mozzarella on it yet. Assuming FMF2 will have story delivered the same way as the first game, I'd happily ignore it and replay the sequel over and over again. But if the story can somehow surpass the original and I get gripped enough to read it or engage with it, that'll be a huge win in my book. My biggest issue with the first game's story was how inconsequential it felt and how little reasons the game gave me to care. Very little characters or locations to attach to, any bigger theme that I could relate to or questions worth answering. Stuff just happened, random names thrown at you with little relevance. Mystery is not the same as confusion and being clever is not the same as being cryptic. The story was the part of the first game that I enjoyed the least.

Personally, I always played the first FMF like an action packed shooter, despite being slower than contemporaries (but not the slowest). That being said, I fully bought into the mood the sequel wanted me to have, which is this slower, more introspective game with more unpredictable foes. If there's one thing the second game can be improved in is to make this part more standout and more of a trademark of sorts. I think it would be a waste if this game was just the first game, but improved. We already have the first game after all. I think it's better for everybody if both can be liked for similar reasons and played for different reasons.

As for replayability, I never really liked how some single-player games force replayability onto me. The games I end up replaying the most are just really good games by themselves and make me feel something, which is not tied to replayability. FMF in this regard doesn't really make me feel and it isn't really replayable, unless you count unique skills and New Game+ to be big enough selling points. I can see the original being a perfect breeding ground for personal self-imposed challenge runs. Dare I say, the game feels completely different if you go for a second playthrough and engage in New Game+. Not a bad thing, just not for me, I don't like engaging in post-game content much.

As for Liquidators, shooting their tanks and then headshotting them got boring fast in the first game. I don't think that's gameplay depth if you're encouraged to do the same thing every time instead of playing however you like. In the sequel at least there's reasons to go for body shots or for the tank shot and that choice is not obvious. At least that's what I think. Hopefully those weak spots matter more with future enemies.

[SuspiciouspegasusTTV]

I saw liquidators, it was cool to shoot their tanks in the first game HOWEVER, I feel like Shooting their tanks should have made their movement speed increase and or like they become a miniboss. I dunno :3 in terms of enemies In FMF1 and 2 there doesn't appear to be any particularly tanky enemies like there was in say DOOM, Cultic, blood or ETC. Like having Some mini boss enemies or having some tougher tankier enemies mixed in with the trash mobs would be great!

Like the Fleshpound from killing floor 2 is a good example of a miniboss enemy(more so in KF1 though) And while I thought the FPs were too easy to take down in KF2. however thats just my opinion!