Dyack's defense: Too Human haters 'just don't get it'

by Ludwig Kietzmann { Aug 19th 2008 at 3:30PM }

When Jeff Gerstmann bemoaned Too Human's "monotonous combat and dated approach to cooperative play," he was unknowingly shunted from the group of haves to the considerably less illustrious group of have nots -- as in have not a clue to comprehend Too Human's unyielding explosion of uniqueness and innovation. "I think we took for granted how innovative the game was," remarks the game's humble director, Denis Dyack.

Speaking to OXM at the game's UK launch, Dyack explains that a lot of the negative reaction to the game's demo (and presumably, the final version) has its roots in the provocative fear of the unknown. "But what we're also seeing is for the people who don't like it, generally just don't get it. And it's because we've created something so innovative and different," he says. "It's ironic, it just shows that human nature of if you don't understand something, you immediately attack it. It's pretty interesting in that regard."

Consider this a plea to game designers everywhere: Please tone down all that rampant innovation, lest we become embroiled in confusion and hostility and ultimately give your game a six out of ten.

Tags: Denis-Dyack, Silicon-Knights, Silly-Con-Knights, Too-Human

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

NaeemTHM @ Aug 19th 2008 3:36PM

Blood Omen was excellent and Eternal Darkness was gaming bliss, Too Human can't be made by the same company. Even Twin Snakes was a fun romp (even if it had some silly cutscenes). The reviews are in and the game averaged about a 6.5; that's in no way a bad score but I can't help but feel disappointed. The game has been in the works for so many years and Silicon Knights still managed to deliver an unfinished product.

I cannot pass judgment myself but, from what I played in the demo, between the abysmal camera and super lame combat; I'm going to have to pass on this one.

Which is a shame because Silicon Knights was one of my favorite game developers. When everyone else laughed at Dyack for crying about not knowing how to properly implement Epic's engine, I sat back and waited for the final product. When the game was demoed at E3 2007 and was reportedly crap, I STILL waited. Now here we are 9 years later standing in dog poo.

Rubix42 @ Aug 19th 2008 3:40PM

A 6.5 IS a bad score in the current game reviewing market. An average score is like 80% or higher.

On a whole games scores are way too high. The fact that Dyack is saying people don't get this game is crazy.

What's not to get, they played it and don't care for it?

Haggard @ Aug 19th 2008 3:41PM

Seems nowadays 10/10 is average for an AAA game.

I look to you, Halo 3, GTA IV and MGS4.

Dirty @ Aug 19th 2008 3:45PM

Seeing as 80 is the average, I think game reviewing in general is broken.

WhoMe @ Aug 19th 2008 3:45PM

You don't think 6.5 is bad? The game's been in the pipeline for 10 years. Don't whine about how it's current state's not been in development for that long, if you have been sitting on this and coming up with all of this stuff like story and gameplay for 10 years and it's still a POS, it's not just people "not getting it".

And yeah, I think Dyack is fucken hilarious, and I don't really have a problem with him being a zealous nutjob because I get a kick out of reading his shit each and every time, but imagine you were working on this game and your boss/lead guy goes around making fools out of everyone involved...

I love how he tries to impart some deeper understanding unto us all each time he goes on a rant as well. Seems like he's always bringing the entire universe/meaning of existance/human nature into it.

Delgado @ Aug 19th 2008 3:47PM

If you look at Metacritic, 103 out of 438 Xbox 360 games are rated as 80+. If your statement were correct, with an "average" score being 80, then the divide would be more like 220 of the scores being 80+.

As it is, ratings seem pretty normal with the top 25% of all games being in the top 20% of scoring. Games aren't usually released if they're assured to be terrible, so it makes sense that the %'s are SLIGHTLY leaning to the top.

Raikage (GOLDEN Gun Of The Patriots) @ Aug 19th 2008 3:51PM

I don't recall Halo 3 getting many 10's...
Most have realized that GTA4 isn't the 10 they thought it was...
And MGS4 deserves every 10 it got, and more IMO...

NaeemTHM @ Aug 19th 2008 4:06PM

I remember reading a gaming mag back in 1999, Dyack talked about how Too Human would revolutionize they way we thought about games. It would blur the line between RPG's and action-platformers. Also, the story was WAY better than what was delivered.

In the magazine he talks about the main character being a detective in the distant future. Almost all humans are cybernetically enhanced and your character is all but human...Too Human as a matter of fact (see wot I did dar?) He said the premise was that if you wanted to jump higher or pack more of a punch, you needed to get all kinds of implants to do so. So you would lose your humanity, but gain the powers to save the city.

Why on gods green earth didn't THAT game happen?!

Marty @ Aug 26th 2008 3:42PM

I read IGN's review for Too Human (7.8) and from what I saw in the demo, it seemed fair and correct. The game isn't perfect, but it's not an abysmal failure either.

The world isn't just 'win' and 'fail.' The entire thing is a gray area between the two, and when you start trying to place everything in one extreme or the other, you just end up looking like an asshole.

David @ Aug 19th 2008 4:53PM

@Raikage
I'd say that MGS4 is the most overrated one of them all. Gamerankings.com and metacritic have it well placed in my opinion, but going by comments, it's somehow much better. The cutscenes were not good. I am an MGS fan. I found MGS2 less enjoyable, MGS3 was my favourite, but MGS4 is awful. The cutscenes dragged far too long, said far too little, attempts at humour were hit and spectacular miss, plot devices were more ridiculous than ever, and some cutscenes introduced and solved issues within themselves. Beyond the cutscenes and story, the stealth gameplay was bland and completely unforgiving, often offering few options upon an alert beyond run and gun or simply run to the next area. Shooting action was not polished enough for the amount of time you had to be doing it, something MGS shouldn't be forcing you to do anyway.

Matt @ Aug 19th 2008 5:11PM

Average scores on metacritic seem to be fundamentally broken based on how they factor in sites that don't use a 1-10 scale. Look at how they factored in giant bomb and 1up. 1up gave it a c-, which I think most people would have around a 72 or so, but for some reason metacritic scores it as a 42? how does that make sense? And Giant Bomb gave it a 3 out of 5 stars, which I would consider pretty good if we are going by movie reviews, yet Metacritic scores it as a 60, which for sites that use a standard 1-10 or 1-100 score would be quite poor.

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Aug 19th 2008 5:15PM

Wait what? since when was an 80%, average. Last time I checked, it's considered above average.

Kael @ Aug 19th 2008 5:46PM

"He said the premise was that if you wanted to jump higher or pack more of a punch, you needed to get all kinds of implants to do so. So you would lose your humanity, but gain the powers to save the city.

Why on gods green earth didn't THAT game happen?!"

It did. It's called Space Siege!

BananaBoat @ Aug 19th 2008 6:44PM

Dennis wins the "Most in denial" award for 2008. Good show sir.

Haggard @ Aug 19th 2008 6:55PM

I also dislike metacritic's system. I've commented on it before and been downvoted, but I don't believe 10/10 = 100%. 100% implies absolute perfection, and no game can ever achieve that. Games come close, and I would give the Orange Box a 10/10 without hesitation. But if I was doing it on percentages, the small flaws would subtract it down to 95-6%.

Similarly metacritic like to make a New York Times etc review saying "lol i liked it" = 100%, even if they point out a load of flaws.

Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ Aug 19th 2008 6:59PM

"And Giant Bomb gave it a 3 out of 5 stars, which I would consider pretty good if we are going by movie reviews,"

Umm, no it isn't. Movie scale goes out of four stars. But on a five star sequence, it goes more like this.

5star- Go see it, seriously.
4star- Good example in it's genre. Lacks universal appeal.
3star- Watchable, but why would you want to?
2star- Even standing amongst it's peers in the genre, this one utterly fails to deliver.
1star- Sooo bad, it should be on your netflix queue

Sinister Rouge @ Aug 26th 2008 5:29PM

@Haggard:

Who says a game can't be perfect? It's not up to you and Metacritic to decide how far off perfect someone's 10/10 score is.

Try reading all that text underneath the large number. It's really good at telling you whether a game is worth buying or not, trust me.

GoldenS1104 @ Aug 19th 2008 3:36PM

Dyack is an ass. He has some fucking nerve. Reviewers (Gertsmann especially) play games till there eyes bleed in order to provide a fair and balanced review. If a reviewer came away from a game not getting it, they would have some one else review it. To degrade them like that is a load of shit.

FOXHOUND @ Aug 19th 2008 3:56PM

According to "Lo Pan" (the evil antagonist character of BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA fame):

"You weren't put on this Earth to 'Get It'."

Draco Basileus @ Aug 19th 2008 4:02PM

To be fair, Gertsmann didn't like Ico or Shadow of the Colossus. Tastes differ and I think we have to get used to that when reading reviews.

If the game is mechanically broken, graphics suck, controls are horrible, then it deserves every criticism that is heaped on it.

People then need to take grain of salt with personal opinion when reviewers say whether they like the story and presentation elements.

Marty @ Aug 26th 2008 3:41PM

Oh come on now, the graphics don't suck. They aren't mind-blowing, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them either. Sheesh.

Draco Basileus @ Aug 19th 2008 5:21PM

@ Marty

I wasn't implying that Too Human's graphics sucked (or at least not trying to imply it). It was more of a general statement for all game reviews. I actually played the Too Human demo and like it quite so much I decided to buy the game (just waiting for it to be delivered). The point I was trying to make is that people shouldn't put too much faith in a reviewer's opinion, especially when taste is involved.

Player1 @ Aug 20th 2008 10:26AM

I don't know about Gertsmann or Giant Bomb. I mean, did you see the SoulCalibur IV review? It looked like he barely played it at all. And he doesn't mention a single thing about it adding online play or the fact that it's the first and only fighters so far that actually works online. Every other fighter I've played is a lagfest, but this one works. I think it's a huge achievement, but online is totally ignored in the review. And then he said he wanted to put the disc away forever because of Ivy's boobage? Seriously, WTF? I never even payed attention to the guy until he got fired, and now that he's doing his own thing he seems to really suck.

John Z @ Aug 19th 2008 3:36PM

What I don't get is why he doesn't get that not everyone would unconditionally love his game. Coincidentally I don't get why Jonathan Blow also does not get this.

Phinehas @ Aug 19th 2008 4:08PM

My love for Blow's game is entirely conditional. If it were not a great game, I wouldn't love it so.

Ihya @ Aug 19th 2008 3:38PM

Wait... What?

Autopsy15 @ Aug 19th 2008 5:35PM

See? You just don't get it.

rivaldi22 @ Aug 19th 2008 3:38PM

Developers note:

Innovation means "put Diablo in a cybernetic setting, but keep the mythology."

That said, I'm looking forward to when GameFly sends me this.

Erik Stroud @ Aug 19th 2008 4:18PM

That is how space siege came to be also. But there is no Mythological elements in that. But, Too Human isn't good in my opinion, he is just to stupid to realize he didn't innovate anything.

Kizzle @ Aug 19th 2008 3:39PM

Ha, how come I knew this douchebag would claim people who disliked the game "just don't get it?" You know who else used that excuse for putting out a crappy product? Fred Durst.

Dennis Dyack - the Limp Bizkit of gaming.

Skunk Ape @ Aug 19th 2008 4:11PM

I do believe that's what Metallica said about St Anger and look how that turned out. Yeah it was different, but different =/= good.

silverwolf761 @ Aug 19th 2008 4:23PM

Except Silicon Knights actually made a GOOD product in their past

Foetoid @ Aug 19th 2008 5:23PM

As did Limp Biskit, Metallica, Silverchair, Linkin Park. I could go on forever, but Developers, just like musicians, all lose thier way eventually after initial success. Rare is a prime example.

Zoesch @ Aug 19th 2008 10:06PM

Really? When did Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park made good music? Because all they've released since day 0 is awful.

Dyack is basically pulling a Factor-5 here.

Alikar @ Aug 19th 2008 3:39PM

How about your game just sucks Dyack?

Mr.ESC @ Aug 19th 2008 3:49PM

http://www.instantrimshot.com/

DiL @ Aug 19th 2008 3:40PM

ya cause katamari is different too and no one likes that game either... cmon just admit, you made a subpar game.

Tasogare @ Aug 19th 2008 4:46PM

What are you talking about? People loved the original... just the sequels failed to amaze.

Superstar90 @ Aug 19th 2008 5:53PM

it's a joke... katamari is a good game, too human is not

OMGOMG @ Aug 19th 2008 3:42PM

So, Too Human reviewers guide: CONFIRMED.

Drew @ Aug 19th 2008 3:52PM

I remember that... sort of. Who released that guide again?

Nick the Hero of Canton @ Aug 19th 2008 3:55PM

Sony for Lair I think.

Andrew Yoon @ Aug 19th 2008 8:16PM

The thing is, many games include reviewers guides. Even good ones. However, Lair's was particularly funny because it came out so many weeks after the game's initial release.

Shaq-Fu @ Aug 19th 2008 3:42PM

Dyack is right, I for one don't understand how he hyped the shit out of this game, then spent about 5 hours actually making the damn thing.

"we've created something so innovative and different"

right again. This isn't your average shit game like Haze, this is an innovative and different shit game. Almost like Alone in the Dark only a lot worse.

"it just shows that human nature of if you don't understand something, you immediately attack"

No Denis, we don't attack things, we just point the analog stick towards it until it dies.

WhoMe @ Aug 19th 2008 3:50PM

+a gazillion hearts for that last comment

Anthony @ Aug 19th 2008 3:45PM

Dude SHUT UP. If people "don't get it" then it's not good... period. The game isn't for you, it's for your audience. If your audience isn't picking up on it, then you didn't do a good enough job selling it to them. Gamers are far more intelligent and much more adaptable than the markets for any other medium: if they think it's not the dope noise, it probably isn't, and you should probably go back to the drawing board.