Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Too Human Meets Mediocre Reviews

Posted by Soulskill on from the norse-cyborgs dept.

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.

46 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Some dev's are clueless... by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just because you have the skills to develop a game, does not mean you know how to develop a gaming experience.

    There are developers that know how to develop entertaining gaming experience, and their are dev's that just know how to make games without a decent ability to judge whether or not what they are developing is exciting, interesting and entertaining and doesn't suck.

    This is a big problem in the industry as far as I'm concerned, there is just too many clueless people (pub's and developers) about how to build entertainment. I think the biggest problem is still the technology. There is so much time and money consuming technical engineering that it overtakes the money and time needed to develop the entertainment aspect. Too much on art and engines, not enough on developing interesting things and connecting them with skill.

    Striking a balance is hard, I agree, but that's the business you're really in: Entertainment. Game developers have to be good at knowing entertainment as well as engineering. It's hard, no doubt... and sometimes you just want to keep trying just doing your own thing (which is also valid) but if you want to do your own thing, you got to go back to small time games and understand what aspects of both the art, and the interaction of the objects, makes the game. Some indie game developers know this, they know what is wrong with the industry.

    1. Re:Some dev's are clueless... by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Some dev's are clueless... by azuredrake · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Striking a balance is hard, I agree, but that's the business you're really in: Entertainment. Game developers have to be good at knowing entertainment as well as engineering. It's hard, no doubt... and sometimes you just want to keep trying just doing your own thing (which is also valid) but if you want to do your own thing, you got to go back to small time games and understand what aspects of both the art, and the interaction of the objects, makes the game. Some indie game developers know this, they know what is wrong with the industry.

      These are actually different jobs in game development. The Game Designer needs a passing knowledge of something like Maya or Max in order to place objects into the gameworld, but for the most part, Designers are the ones in charge of the skillful creation of entertaining content you outlined above.

      The other positions which play into the technical knowledge vs. fun tug-of-war you mentioned are engineers and producers, for the most part. Engineers are in charge of maintaining and upgrading aspects of the engine used for the game so that the content the designers want can be created. And producers are in charge of delivering the product on-time and on-budget, so they ultimately may be responsible for cutting content the engineers and designers want to put in.

      My real point is just that your tirade is... slightly uninformed. Not totally devoid of merit - it's true that some designers are bad at gauging the "fun" of their systems and are designing just for themselves. But the technical fluency requirements for a game designer are not that high, and thus are almost certainly not the cause of "un-fun" gameplay in any number of crappy games that release every year.

      --
      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    3. Re:Some dev's are clueless... by TuringTest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Some dev's are clueless... by BoberFett · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Some dev's are clueless... by loutr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I love WoW, and played more than my share of Diablo (both of them), and I don't think you're being fair by saying that we play "SOLELY" for the loot.

      I'm in a guild with very nice and interesting people, some of whom have become good friends, and I like to play with them just for the sake of messing around. When we down a raid boss for the first time, the thrill of watching the last few % of his life bar go down, hoping that it will get to 0 faster than my mana bar (I'm a healer) is much more enticing than the loot that we will get.

      Of course getting a shiny new piece of gear is rather pleasing, but the real reward is seeing new content, downing new bosses, and enjoying the gameplay. The loot is one of the rewards, not the only one. Else I would still be playing D2 and would'nt be paying my 13 euros per month...

    6. Re:Some dev's are clueless... by Weedlekin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Blizzard has proven that there are tens of millions of gamers who game SOLELY for the objective of collecting incrementally improving loot."

      Those games are actually proof of the fact that Blizzard are good at making games which appeal to a wide range of people for all sorts of different reasons. It's the designers who think WOW or Diablo's success are "SOLELY" due to one or two factors that end up producing stuff which only appeals to a sub-set of people who play Blizzard games in a particular way, thereby denying them the massive success that Blizzard's offerings enjoy.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  2. Innovative? by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the basis of 3 hours or so play, it's a pretty but generally uninspired 3d Diablo clone, at heart. Sure, it mixes Norse mythology with sci-fi, but that's hardly new. Just ask John Romero - I seem to remember him at least partly doing that in Daikatana (although if, like most people, you only played the demo, you won't have seen those bits). It's also really easy, the enemies seem to auto-scale (a la Oblivion), which is a feature that should be consigned to the dustbin of history, and the camera is annoying. Personally, I'd go for a 6 on 10. Maybe a 7 on the basis of the graphics.

    Is this just another case of Derek Smart thinking his IQ is at least twice what it really is?

    1. Re:Innovative? by prestomation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What don't you like about the enemy autoscaling? I thought Oblivion was nice in how you can more finely define how hard the game is, even while you're playing it.

    2. Re:Innovative? by Feanturi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I don't like about the auto-scaling in Oblivion is that the game tends to remain at the same relative difficulty at all times. For an open-ended game where you can access just about anywhere in the world from the beginning of the game, this is no fun. There should be all sorts of places that will get you destroyed until you've been around the block a few times, then you can come back to those areas later and *this time* clear them. That's an accomplishment for you as a player, winning against something that previously kicked your ass. With auto-scaling, this doesn't really happen, you just pick somewhere to go, clear it, go somewhere else, clear that, etc. Don't get me wrong, I loved Oblivion, but various bits of it needed work, and the level scaling thing was one of them.

    3. Re:Innovative? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Innovative? by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Innovative? by mdfst13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that you are looking at two different things:

      Feanturi: being able to arbitrarily go to any place in the game and be competitive makes it hard to have a progressive and coherent story. This leads to boring games without good story lines.

      Doctor_Jest: having the difficulty for a place in the game be such that you need to be level X to play it forces you into meaningless activities purely to gain levels. This is boring.

      It's at least conceivable that one could address both concerns in the same game. Have scaling, but also have dependencies for various missions. If you haven't completed the dependencies for a mission, then the scaling should be set high (and NPCs should warn you away from that area and point you back where you should be).

      It seems to me that Diablo II did that by simply prohibiting you from certain areas until you had completed the prior missions. However, the Diablo II scaling for necromancers was bad for me, as I got stuck needing a Blood Golem (IIRC) to defeat Andariel. This led me to grind for a while to get up to the necessary level.

      Playing the game in story order (possibly with some side missions that are optional) while always being tough enough to be challenging but not so tough to be impossible makes for a more fun gaming experience. Making that happen with as few limits on gameplay as possible is difficult but should not be impossible.

    6. Re:Innovative? by Danse · · Score: 2, Informative

      because since I finished Oblivion, I've wanted something to continue that open-ended realistic world feel, but nothing's come close...

      It's called Oblivion + lots of mods! There's a ton of mods out there that add huge amounts of content to Oblivion. They make it into an almost totally different game. Much deeper. Many more interesting quests and storylines. All-around better gameplay and a much prettier world to explore. It's just ridiculous how much new content has been created.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    7. Re:Innovative? by Gorath99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's interesting. In my experience the auto-scaling actually destroys much of the story.

      In Morrowind, I really liked how the world didn't revolve around me. The world just was. It didn't seem like it needed the player to justify its existence. That really increased my immersion in the game. I also really felt that my character was developing. Challenges (both in and out of combat) that I couldn't handle before eventually became doable, and later trivally easy. That really complemented the story in which you became a truly legendary character.

      You could also effectively choose how difficult the game was for you. If you wanted to be a pilgrim, a merchant, or some other non-combat profession you could easily do that. You'd just have to avoid the really dangerous areas of the map, which was straightforward, and you would still have huge areas to enjoy. In Oblivion this doesn't work anymore. If you level on non-combat skills, the whole world becomes more and more dangerous until the point where you're constantly assailed by opponents you can't handle, wherever you go. Leveling now becomes a punishment instead of a reward.

      Also, I find it really destroys suspension of disbelief when eventually every highwayman wields magical items that are worth a small kingdom, peaceful lands are roamed by packs of minotaurs and trolls, and all sewers are filled to the brim by epic goblins. And besides that, it's simply annoying. I don't want highwaymen to remain challenging. They're just not interesting enough for that. Once I'm a renowned hero, I should be able to dispatch them with ease. Beowulf, Achilles, or Aragorn struggling with a band of nameless thugs every couple of minutes when traveling through peaceful lands, does not a good story make.

    8. Re:Innovative? by Danse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Doctor_Jest: having the difficulty for a place in the game be such that you need to be level X to play it forces you into meaningless activities purely to gain levels. This is boring.

      If all of the areas that a low-level player could handle are somehow less meaningful than a more difficult area, then that's just bad design. There's absolutely no reason that low-level areas and quests should have to be "meaningless". There should be plenty for a low-level character to do without having to grind for levels to get to interesting content.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  3. Re:Bad grammar by wigle · · Score: 4, Informative

    The title follows the conventions of use in English. It won't confuse any native speaker.

    Just as films can get "good reviews" and "bad reviews", a video game can get "mediocre reviews".

    --
    ::wigle::
  4. Seems pretty fair... by AlmondMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Seems pretty fair... by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, 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

      Another poster below reveals the reason for the upper-half-only review thing you get with 10-point scales:

      Personally, I'd give te game an 8.2, or in letter grading terms, a B-.

      When you're using that scoring system, 1-5 is an F, 6 is a D, 7 is a C, 8 is a B, and 9-10 are an A. C is defined as "average," so anything less than a 7 is "below average" and 6/10 becomes a bad game.

      It seems kind of silly to me. The whole "percent to letter grade" thing makes some amount of sense in school, but when reviewing, it means that you limit yourself to the upper half of the scale, and make anything below a 5 essentially meaningless.

      But that's why you see review scores treated the way they do. Everyone treats them as a test grade from school, and a 6/10 is a low grade on a test.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  5. Don't get it. by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If game players "just don't get it" then you have made a bad game.

    1. Re:Don't get it. by Das+Modell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, not necessarily. If you released Grim Fandango or Fallout today, I bet there'd be a lot of Halo kiddies who wouldn't "get it."

    2. Re:Don't get it. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Contrary to what it's become popular to spout, gamers today aren't a bunch of fuckin' morons. Nor, for that matter, is Halo a bad game. Ironically, I find the people that spout these opinions to be the unintellent ones, since they're almost always hating on the game just because it's popular, or the kids these days just because they can. Very seldom is there an actual, valid, reason to back these sentiments up.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    3. Re:Don't get it. by Bodrius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nonsense.

      For both of those titles, Halo kiddies would "get it", they'd just wouldn't like them - just like any other adventure / RPG games.

      "Sure, that's nice... but those types of games are slow and boring..."

      Those games were innovative in many ways (content, mostly) - but their gameplay mechanics were pretty conventional.

      "Sins of a Solar Empire" is probably a better example - the change is subtle enough that it can take you completely by surprise if you keep expecting an RTS, or an empire-building game like Galciv... and it's only really fun when you "get" it is neither and stop trying to play like it was Homeworld.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    4. Re:Don't get it. by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay. Let's get valid. It's just another FPS. It has no discernible story (when it's not a paper-thin attempt to link the games with backstory no one seems to bother caring about), most of the time it's just the same old "shoot everything that moves, and if it doesn't move, pick it up and use it to shoot everything that moves." It doesn't break any technological ground (it's not even 720p on the 360), nor does it bag the cliche's for something fresh. It's not the be-all-end-all revolutionary game for consoles that MS marketroid hype has made it out to be. It's fine if it's popular, and it's certainly find if you like it or if millions like it.

      Is it fun for some people? Sure. But don't excuse all criticism of the game as some snooty "back in my day" sort of claims and relegate all people who don't like the game in some sort of club that hate things because they're popular.

      Give me an Oblivion or Too Human over Halo any day. Does that make me less intelligent than the Halo crowd? If it makes them sleep better at night... go for it. ;)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    5. Re:Don't get it. by Das+Modell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Contrary to what it's become popular to spout, gamers today aren't a bunch of fuckin' morons.

      Very seldom is there an actual, valid, reason to back these sentiments up.

      Clearly you have never visited forums populated by gamers, such as Steampowered. The average gamer is so stupid that no amount of science and philosophy can explain how they're able to even turn on a computer.

      Nor, for that matter, is Halo a bad game.

      No, but it's got a really shitty fanbase.

    6. Re:Don't get it. by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fine, I'll give you some valid reasons. Halo isn't a bad game, it really isn't. However, it's not a good game either, it's mediocre. I was excited as hell for Halo before Microsoft bought out Bungie. I remember seeing the original videos and pictures and though it was going to be an amazing game. Even after Microsoft bought Bungie I wasn't deterred, I bought an Xbox solely for Halo. When I played it I found it wasn't that good. It wasn't original, it wasn't unique, it was just there. Thanks to Microsofts huge PR push it became an instant hit though and spawned two sequels and soon an RTS. It's widely proclaimed to be one of the best FPS games by Halo players, which leads me to assume they have little experience with FPS games that came before it. I'd even rate Goldeneye for the N64 (to keep it console only) much higher than Halo. Don't get me wrong, playing Halo 3 multiplayer with friends while drinking a few beers is fun, but not fun enough to buy the game.

      It's not that we're hating on kids, but they are a new generation of gamers. One which I think are more concerned with pretty graphics than gameplay. I still go back to old games and love to play them. Of course I can't get the Halo gamer types to pick them up at all. So in this regard I agree with the GP that they wouldn't get Grim Fandango or Fallout or even games in the same vein.

      Note that I'm not saying Too Human is good or bad. I played the demo and found it moderately fun, but didn't get the urge to buy it from playing the demo.

    7. Re:Don't get it. by Das+Modell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nonsense.

      For both of those titles, Halo kiddies would "get it", they'd just wouldn't like them - just like any other adventure / RPG games.

      "Sure, that's nice... but those types of games are slow and boring..."

      Those games were innovative in many ways (content, mostly) - but their gameplay mechanics were pretty conventional.

      Halo kiddies couldn't play them because they lack the necessary intelligence and attention span. They can only understand pretty colors and shiny objects that blow up. I've seen players complain that the RPGs of the late 90s are unplayable because they are so "archaic," because you need to read an instruction manual to play them and because the graphics are so outdated.

    8. Re:Don't get it. by Das+Modell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Halo has, far and away, the best story to grace an FPS.

      BioShock
      Deus Ex
      Half-Life
      Half-Life 2
      System Shock
      System Shock 2
      Thief
      Thief II

      Half-Life 2 and BioShock are the only ones that were released after Halo.

      No other game, for that matter, has characters so endearing that I actually gave a damn about their fates by the end of the journey.

      Whatever credibility you might have had just vanished. Poof. Gone.

      We may see better stories in FPS games in the future, but Halo's legacy will always be that it was the first FPS to have a great tale to tell.

      The only thing I remember about Halo's story is that someone's going to activate Halo and it's going to kill everyone, and then Master Chief stops it.

    9. Re:Don't get it. by antime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not that we're hating on kids, but they are a new generation of gamers. One which I think are more concerned with pretty graphics than gameplay.

      People have been using that argument for pretty much as long as videogames have existed, and it is just as dumb now as it was then. There never was a period when graphics didn't matter, or a period when crap shovelware games didn't exist. It's really all rose-colored glasses and extremely selective memories.

    10. Re:Don't get it. by Das+Modell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are not FPSes. Or at least, Bioshock isn't, and from what I understand of Deus Ex, it isn't. They're hybrids.

      See Bioshock.

      Then I guess Halo isn't an FPS either. After all, it deviates quite a bit from the model established by Doom.

      Have terrible story.

      HL2 is debatable, unless you count the Episodes, but Half-Life's story is told very well.

      Also not FPS'es. If those are FPS, then Assassin's Creed is an FPS.

      Assassin's Creed is a third person game. Thief and Thief II are first person.

      Whatever. It isn't my fault if you don't like the characters. Entertainment is subjective that way. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing, but when you presume to speak of "losing credibility" because we disagree, you need to get off your high horse.

      It's one thing to say that no other FPS game has had such good characters, but to compare Halo with all other games ever released? Sheer madness.

      Then pay attention? Without even reading the books, I got a lot more out of it than that. No story is going to grab you if you don't pay any attention to it.

      I paid attention to the story as much as I've paid attention to it in all the other games I've played. It just wasn't memorable.

    11. Re:Don't get it. by coachellamasada · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Halo kiddies couldn't play them because they lack the necessary intelligence and attention span. They can only understand pretty colors and shiny objects that blow up. I've seen players complain that the RPGs of the late 90s are unplayable because they are so "archaic," because you need to read an instruction manual to play them and because the graphics are so outdated.

      Today's Halo kiddies aren't that much different than the Street Fighter 2 or Tekken 3 players of the late 90's. Most of them just wanted to bash stuff and they didn't give a shit about games like Baldur's Gate or Fallout either. Why should they? Games to them are recreation, something you do with your friends to kill some time after school. American CRPGs on the other hand are an acquired taste for a narrow audience and I don't think less of anyone who doesn't enjoy them.

      As far as Halo players lacking intelligence and attention span, I think that has more to do with the demographic playing (mostly teenage boys) than anything. Most teenage boys are morons and have always been morons. In the 50s they liked fast cars, stag films and movies about blowing up cowboys. Today it's Halo and internet porn. Be angry about it if you must, but have some perspective.

    12. Re:Don't get it. by biqstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      HAHAHA Disregard that, I suck cocks

    13. Re:Don't get it. by antime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, but there was a time when games had variety. The by far biggest annoyance of todays games is that they simply all play the same and even if a game comes up with a new idea, its instantly cloned in every other game, so that nothing stays unique for long.

      That's not true either. Today you can easily find just about any kind of game you can think of, and many more in genres you have never even heard of. Cloning has also been part of the industry for as long as it has existed. The main difference is that due to lawsuits it's far less blatant than it used to be - look in magazines from around 1980-83 and you'll find plenty of ripoffs where the only difference is one letter changed in the name. Sequels became the mainstay of the industry during the first half of the 80s (a good example here is the British documentary Commercial Breaks which followed two game companies during the run-up to the Christmas '85 sales. Then press darlings Imagine went spectacularly bust due to mismanagement and technical overreach, while competitors Ocean played it safe by focusing on a sequel to last year's hit game.)

      You still can waste time with them and have some fun, but noteworthy games that I will fondly remember in ten years down the line? Nope, most of them are pretty forgettable stuff that will be superseded by the improved sequel next year anyway.

      Stop right there! This is just what I mean by selective memory. For every of these "classic" years, go and take a look at all the games released and then tell me how large the portion of truly memorable games is.

      The uniqueness that you got back in the day, thanks to small teams and unique ideas, is pretty much gone in todays business driven world where each and every aspect of a game gets watered down so much that its near indistinguishable form the stuff you played last year.

      Successful game companies were just as business driven then (again, watch the documentary linked above). Also, digital distribution, Xbox Live, the Playstation Network and plain old PayPal means it's far easier for small independent developers to make their games available.

    14. Re:Don't get it. by brkello · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, the average gamer != the average person who posts on game forums. If you go to any forum for any game, you can generally conclude that the game is filled solely with children that are the result of first cousin (or brother-sister) relationships.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    15. Re:Don't get it. by grumbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the case of Fallout however you couldn't even blame them, since the game expects quite a bit of in-depth knowledge of role playing right before it even starts. One of the major annoyances for me with those RPGs is that the skill setting happens before the game even starts. How shall I know what good any of those dozens of attributes is when I haven't even set a single foot in the gaming world?

      I agree that todays games have tons of faults, but some old school games really require a lot of familiarity with the genre before you can even start making a meaningful decision about what you want to do in the game and you aren't gaining that knowledge from just starting to play the game, since those games aren't really trying much to tutor you.

  6. Makes it bland by eddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Autoscaling is to games as loudness war is to music.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  7. Try it for yourself by Admodieus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's a demo on Marketplace that allows you to play as every class (through an easter egg, intentionally left in by Silicon Knights). I think a lot of reviewers expected the world from this game. I expected a dungeon crawler/action RPG similar to Phantasy Star Online and Diablo. I'm very happy with the end product. Personally, I'd give te game an 8.2, or in letter grading terms, a B-. It has some problems - namely, the length, some camera issues, and a weak story - but the core gameplay is FUN. And that's what's important to me.

    --
    "It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
  8. Re:Not at all surprising by Generic+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I heard so much buzz about this game in the months/years leading up to its publication. Can someone more knowledgeable about some of the history help me understand this?

    I think most of the "buzz" surrounding Too Human was mostly about how long the game has been in development and Silicon Knights' very public fallout with Epic. After spending a lot of money on Epic's Unreal Engine, SK then claim it was delivered unfinished and un-usable, and that promised enhancements were ignored while Epic used the time and money to finish their own competing game. Ultimately, Silicon Knights sued Epic and then say they rewrote the game and authored their own complete game engine. The whole lawsuit thing is a bit of a spectacle, especially since no other dev houses seem to have anything bad to say about Epic's Unreal Engine.

    I'd say this is less hype about Too Human itself and more about watching this train wreck unfold.

    --
    { - Generic Guy - }
  9. Re:Bad grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Meet is slightly problematic, though.

    Meet is used all the time in English! Superbowl teams meet victory! I go to the grocery to meet food! Transplant patient meets new kidney!

    It's a perfectly cromulent word in this situation.

  10. It's so innovative, I mean, come on, by Logicalmoron · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's a game that is not for gamers. Brilliant!!!! Game of the year!

  11. Re:Bad grammar by Sentry21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:A decade? by LilBlackDemon · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's changed significantly since it was announced. Also, it's been on (in order), the PS1, GameCube, and now X360. It also started out as futuristic Sci-Fi, and now it's Gothic Norse.

    --
    freeflux-powered open-source blog
  13. Re:Reviews aren't everything by Stunn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. players didn't yet "get it" ? by DragonTHC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  15. I've played it and it's got potential by Trojan35 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem is it isn't finished.

    The Good:
    Most amazing armors I've ever seen.
    Great new combat controls. Yes, they did get it right for the most part.
    The levels are truly beautiful. The main city is ridiculously awesome.
    Norse mythology translates pretty damn well to a futuristic world. Great backdrop.
    The gameplays and levels are all very finished.

    Every single asset in this game is awesome... but why is it getting sub-par reviews?

    The Bad:
    Only 4 types of enemies. Seriously?
    Only 2 player co-op makes many class abilities lame.
    All that great gear, and the gear interface is slow and cludgy.
    Most of the classes play pretty much the same.
    Co-op strategy isn't really necessary, although it makes the game much more fun.
    Plays a lot like PSO. You walk into a room, the same bad guys spawn as the last room, repeat.
    Death is a major problem. The death mechanic in the game take all of the sense of accomplishment out of boss fights. Wasting my time is a very bad game mechanic as a "death" punishment.
    There isn't nearly enough story for an "epic trilogy". Seriously, I got that much story in one mission in Oblivion.

    So here's the thing. All the assets are there, they just need to work on making them more accessible and more inviting. Also, they need split screen or shared screen co-op. That would make this a killer game.

  16. Re:Bad grammar by Skrapion · · Score: 2, Informative

    Blame Nietzsche. It's a reference to his book Human, All Too Human.

    --
    The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.