Pretty good rant by him defending Too Human. I haven't even played the demo but he seemed honest enough. I'll play the demo later but anyway take a look.
Take a lesson hiphopgamer on how it is done *SLAP*
wow..... its funny to see this un-candid defensive side of him that he can't show on tv.
but I would have to agree that 5.5 seems a bit low.
This guy is the man, but I have no idea who he is...? I'm gonna sign up for that forum.
After a game has been in development as long as Too Human has (as well as being featured so often at E3), I'd expect a shitton from the game as well.
I agree with a 5.5
For a game that was in development for 1 or 2 years. I can understand it being called under-rated. But let's be honest, you can't hold all games to the same criteria. If that was the case a game like Madden would be getting 2's and 3's at this point in review scores for their sequel's being too similar and games like Rainbow Six wouldn't be penalized for it.
The game was hyped up for years and years....and has been worked on for about 10years now. And look at these problems of the game (some which are mentioned even in Kevin's rant)
- Glitches galore...really, you walk and just fall into space? When is the last time you played a game that did that? When was the last time you played a high-profile/major release that did that?
- Co-op mode online is a mess which I'm sure will get fixed with patches. But also, this game is only 2player co-op? If it was at least 4player it'd increase the online "community" feel and let you trade drops a lot more and a lot easier...but 2player co-op is a poor though
- Leveling Up Issues are huge on the gameplay. So the opponents scale up to your level to "balance" the game. This is VERY stupid. So the higher level you get, and the better weapons you pick-up, the enemies/computer adjusts. So basically...all the accomplishment in having better weapons and leveling up is kind of a waste of time since you never get to show off or enjoy any kind of dominance by defeating previously hard enemies who are now weak compared to you. This is just RETARDED
- Dying means nothing, if you die, it has little to no effect on you except for having to watch a respawning sequence. This defeats the purpose of having classes which's strengths/purpose is healing and defense.
- Camera issues, the camera just flat-out sucks and there is no excuse for it. A simple solution could've been something like "hold LB" while moving right joystick to adjust camera. This is inexcusable.
I really believe that anybody defends any of these huge flaws in anyway is already emotionally involved with Silicon Knights, or Microsoft so deep that they're just blindly defending the title because "It's Silicon Knights, it CAN'T SUCK!" or "But this is Too Human, I've been hyped on this for YEARS I CAN'T POSSIBLY SAY THIS GAME SUCKS".
You know what I mean? This is a game that was a "must-buy" for me for my 360, and then I played the demo and was very very disappointed. And now I won't buy it until it's on clearance. But I understand some people have looked forward to this and even though they know that it had bad reviews and may not play well, they've invested so much interest and emotion into following this game for so many years or bragging about it being on the 360 or whatever that they've committed themselves into buying it. So now ontop of the time and emotion, they've put $60 up, and are just in denial of how mediocre/borderline-suck this game really is.
Pretty much, I don't want to hear the shit from people about how great this game is.
And I don't want to hear the shit from people rubbing it in other's faces on how broken the game is anymore.
I just said enough to cover it.
It is what it is.
If you don't like it, you don't like it....shut up now
If you enjoy it, then you enjoy it....shut up now
the game was not worked on for 10 years people. Don't believe the hype -- try about 4 years. Probably started out as an Xbox project and moved over to the 360. Or started before the 360 launched and came to realization with a deal with microsoft.
The 10 years thing was it being in pre-production (design and theory). If you want to count that as actual game development, then the same could be said about any game that has been sprouted of an idea that began when someone was in their childhood.
Too Human was originally in development on the Playstation. It was supposed to be a game that was 4discs long, and they even showed it at E3 in 1999. (So it was obviously in development before 1999).
It was later moved and rebuilt for GameCube and shown at Spaceworld 2000.
SK then moved their development focus on Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear: Twin Snakes Dyack has said before they still came up with more ideas and had been working on Too Human. That doesn't mean they were necessarily coding and such, which I'm sure they weren't. I'm sure it was building its story (which is supposed to be so huge and great....and this Too Human trilogy was "supposed" to go down as classic as the Star Wars and Lord of The Rings trilogy), and even the story fell short. After Metal Gear, SK went back to full focus on Too Human.
This game is a huge disappointment. A waste of Silicon Knight's time. And a waste of a lot of people's excitement and efforts of creating the game, playing the game, and trying to keep interest in the game. This just reminds me of the earlier XBox games like Brute Force.
you have to remember that every time.... the development started and then abruptly stopped.... it wasn't a continuous dev cycle..... and each time the development basically started from scratch.
Plus.... SK had many legal troubles with EPIC and the Unreal engine which also put a damper on the games progress.... so you can't really say that the final product was given any more time than many other games out there....
to me.... the game seems very much like a Kingdom Under Fire game....but much much deeper.... and I liked KoF.... even if it was a run-kill-die-respawn-kill-win rpg.... it was still fun.
So my point is that the reviews seem a bit low because no review should be lowered based on falling short on hyped expectations.
That said... Personally I am a bit disappointed with the game not living up to its potential and so far have not purchased it when I thought I would. But I have played it at my friends house and its entertaining.
Opponents scaling up to your level is something that everyone raved about when Oblivion released but now Too Human is getting torn up for using it? Convenient.
If people like the game, they aren't necessarily in denial of anything...it's different tastes and expectations. I wouldn't be so disappointed because after 10 years and 3 platform jumps, I knew my expectations were too high. You however, didn't.
Everyone wasn't raving about it, I myself have never liked that idea since I played FFTactics, it is still a great game with that one major flaw though, and I know a lot of people don't like emeny's leveling with you.Opponents scaling up to your level is something that everyone raved about when Oblivion released but now Too Human is getting torn up for using it? Convenient.
Not to mention there haven't been many other major games that I can think of beyond the ones mentioned (FF8 to an extent if I remember right, but it was done better there, every enemy had it's own cap), so if you haven't actually experienced it and think it's a good idea then realize it's not after playing Oblivion it isn't being hypocritical...
If Too Human took 10 years to make, then whenever George Lucas makes Star Wars 7, we can assess that it took him over 30 years to make that.
So there... in a nutshell... your hella wrong. When you start interviewing Silicon Knights and Denis Dyack, and chatting with him over e-mail concerning his game or Xbox Live, then maybe one day you can have an intelligent discussion.
wow....to much animosity....
again Dakota...your forgetting to mention the lawsuits that stopped and threw kinks into the dev cycle......so it wasn't really 4 years.
I hate it when people keep bringing up the 10 year cycle since it clearly wasn't.
It was a 10 year cycle. They had 10 years to come up with ideas and other things to make the game better then it is. They worked on eternal darkness and twin snakes and could have learned about camera work or something from those and carried it over to the 360 version. I remember seeing the game on gamecube and I wanted it, but then it never released. So it got ported to the 360 and so the 360 cycle of the game was 4 years. Though 4 years is a fucking long time still to even have a game with this many faults. Look at major game releases like COD4 or Gears of War, they took a lot less then 4 years to develop and they don't have near the amount of problems that Too Human has.
The game can be fun sure, but fuck if i'm going to pay 60$ for a game that doesn't play worth 60$.
It was a 10 year process but not 10 year development cycle on the game that is currently out.
It was not ported over to the 360 from the Gamecube or the PS1. That would be silly to ever think that.
all correct.... and I agree with you too Noah.....they should have gained enough top tier experience from their past games to be able to make a stellar game out of Too Human....
I am not going to be buying it for the 60$ price tag either.... but I definitely think it deserves something higher than a 5.5
They should of made a better game but even with expectations..the 5.5 doesn't justify it. Kung Fu panda man...which is higher in quailty Too HUman or Kung Fu panda?? I know they target different audiences but the viewer sees it as a comparsion to other games. Kung Fu panda...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)