Slashdot Mirror
Too Human Meets Mediocre Reviews
Earlier this week, the long anticipated action-adventure game, Too Human, was finally released for the Xbox 360. After being in various stages of development for about a decade, the game made its US debut to overall lackluster marks. Gamespot weighed in with a 5.5/10, while IGN gave it a slightly more favorable 7.8. Developer Denis Dyack from Silicon Knights defended the game, saying players didn't yet "get it," and that it was "so innovative that we have put some people off." The game's reception in Japan has been similar.
Got the demo from Live, played it and found it unremarkable, but the setting was interesting. But then, the whole review thing is silly most places. If a game gets less than 9/10 then it's a bad game. 8.5 is a bad score it seems. A game scoring 6-7 is still in the upper half of the quality scale, and taking into account how good a game would have to be to score above a clean 9, if things were done properly instead of based on money and hype, then 7 wouldn't be a bad score at all... A local game magazine describes a 6 on it's 10 scale as a mediocre game that will appeal to fans of the genre.
If game players "just don't get it" then you have made a bad game.
Autoscaling is to games as loudness war is to music.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
What's entertaining is subjective. Even if Too Human had been executed absolutely perfectly in every respect there would still be a lot of people who just don't like games where your objective is mainly to collect a ton of incrementally improving loot, or who'd rather be more strategic than wade into a crowd of monsters and start bashing heads. And there are still going to be a few people for which everything about this game just clicks and they have a blast with it despite the review scores.
What you're really complaining about is unwillingness to stake the budget of a modern game on a new and unexplored concept instead of the same game that was made last year and proven in the market but with a graphics update, and that's a much realer and more serious problem.
I'd rather have the ability to flesh out the story rather than be frustrated by a bloody insane enemy in a game that stops me from enjoying the story until I go to a few ruins and grind levels. That takes the fun out of the game _and_ the story. Kudos to Oblivion for having the foresight to realize the story was more important than hacking and slashing your way to higher levels and getting a cramp trying to kill a Liche or something similar.
That sort of nonsense was why I gave up on Mass Effect. There may have been a great story in there, but awkward controls of the landing rover and VICIOUS enemies early on preventing the story from becoming entertaining. To each his own. Make it a toggle if you must, but getting rid of it means many people who don't spend 12 hours a day in front of a console will miss out on the story and the hard work developers put into the game.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
The key here, I think, is 'native speaker'. My ex-girlfriend, born in Russia, raised francophone in Quebec, speaks English well enough that you'd never know she wasn't anglophone. There's a slight accent if you listen for it, but it's subtle enough that you don't notice it after a day or two.
She frequently used to ask me how to say something, or why something means something, or ask me to check over her writing. Frequently, I'd find mistakes which I would consider 'elementary', in the sense that they are the basic mistakes which everyone makes. She would often get frustrated, because she'd want to know what the rule was in that situation, how one was supposed to know how to write or say something in particular.
The best I could usually tell her was 'Well... experience. You just have to know from experience how things are supposed to sound or be said or written, and eventually something will just feel right, or it won't.' I don't think she ever actually liked that answer, but I didn't feel like getting into a 'It's usually this but about half the time it's this except for two thirds of that half of the time when you're also saying this....'
It's pretty ugly.
Eternal Darkness was well-liked for as long as I can remember. When it was released, I remember it being one of the best reviewed Gamecube games and it was getting all around praise from players. It just never had any commercial success, but it was always looked fondly upon.
I'd call that a failure.
If players don't get your game, maybe it's not them, maybe it's the game.
and to say it's "so innovative that we have put some people off." Yes, I think that's it. Too Human must be too good. Way to toot your own horn Dyack.
This thing stinks of robotic frogs all over. But I'm going to try the demo anyway. Maybe I'm wrong.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Autoscaling has MANY issues.
Badly tuned autoscaling can result in the game progressing very strangely. You start good and kill enemies with a moderate challenge at the start. But the game believes that is too easy and ramps up the difficulty until you die a couple times, at which point it sets difficulty back to easy. You get a very strange cycle where difficulty progressively rises then abruply falls.
In games like Oblivion it manifests in a different way: It's hard to judge the player's power. For instance in Morrowind (Oblivion's predecessor) you can make items that will continously heal yourself and by performing certain tricks make yourself absurdly powerful at low levels, sometimes without trying very hard. Or, you can follow a very suboptimal progression if what interests you is say, commerce and roleplay. As a result, you get a game that's either absurdly easy or absurdly hard.
Another problem is that you get worlds where EVERYTHING gets harder. At level 1, a rat did moderate amount of damage. At level 20, it now also does moderate damage to a knight in shiny armor, and a keen vorpal longsword of burnination +5. The lowly thugs you had issues with at level 3 now level 15, wear shiny armor and have magical swords, and inexplicably demand your lunch money. It doesn't make any sense for a warrior in the top 1% of the world to hang around a crossroads and mug people. They could go hire themselves for a much better price.
Even the scaling is done well, the result is still strange. The cave where low life robbers are hiding is still challenging at level 15. The citadel is possible to storm at level 5. If it wasn't for the requirement of having the right items you could probably go fight the big bad at level 3, as autoscaling would ensure he'd be possible for you to defeat.
IMO, games like Oblivion should be planned differently. Instead of autoscaling there should be a progressive increase in difficulty as you get away from civilization. The rats in an inn's cellar should be doable at level 1. The bandits on the crossroads should be moderately challenging at level 5. The hideout in the woods far from the road should be pretty hard at level 10. And if you decide to storm a castle, you'd better be armed to the teeth.
It should be perfectly possible to make a game where you can explore even at low levels. Cities should be generally safe. Roads less so. The further you get from civilized places, the less safe it should be. It doesn't have to be frustrating, if you find you're barely surviving you should be able to return to safer places.
But when we normalize it and build it by consensus, it won't be fun anymore. And we'll have to find a different kind of fun, a new baseline.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Between World of Warcraft and the Diablo series, Blizzard has proven that there are tens of millions of gamers who game SOLELY for the objective of collecting incrementally improving loot.
If Too Human fails, it means it's just a bad game.
I'm not a native speaker either, but it actually took me a while to recognize what the OP was complaining about. While I'm not an expert on all the world's languages, in the few that I'm fluent in, one can say something like "bad marks", "poor evaluations", and even "mediocre reviews" and it will mean exactly what it means in this headline, and not that there's something wrong with the reviews.