Dyack: Too Human 10-year dev cycle 'factually incorrect'

by Ross Miller { Aug 25th 2008 at 10:00AM }

Silicon Knights' Denis Dyack wants to set the record straight: Too Human was not in development for 10 years. Speaking to X3F during their tour of the studios last week, Dyack said, "I cannot dispel that rumor enough ... that is a bad way to talk about Too Human because that is factually incorrect." He cites the E3 1999 reveal -- at that point planned as a 4-disc PS One title -- but explains that production didn't actually begin until after Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes was completed. Given that title's March 2004 release, we're going to carbon date Too Human at 5 years, born in 7 A.D., or Anno Duke (Nukem Forever).

It should be noted that there are screenshots from E3 1999, but both those and the descriptions appear devoid of any Norse mythology that now has become a major aspect of the game. Stay tuned for video and images from X3F's Silicon Knights tour later today.

Check out X3F's four-part video series with Too Human developer Silicon Knights, including a guided studio tour and an interview with the ever-controversial Denis Dyack.

Tags: decade, denis-dyack, silicon-knights, too-human

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

killian @ Aug 25th 2008 10:06AM

This guy needs to just stay out of the press he needs to hire a proper PR person... there is a time to talk and there is a time to see what you have accomplished with your game....

WhoMe @ Aug 25th 2008 10:35AM

Yeap, that and he needs to stop LYING.

I distinctly remember seeing a video of him some time after this game was announced. He was going on and on about how the first LOTR movie did a bad job at storytelling: that people were left in the air after it ended and such. He then went on to prophetize that his game would basically be perfect in this department. Ultimately he compared his game to some other popular games/franchises and saying his game would be so much better. Now that the game is out, turns out the storytelling is epic fail for exactly the mistakes he said he would not make. Not to mention him pimping the whole "human/machine choice", which WASN'T EVEN IN THE GODDAMN GAME.

I'm really curious to see whether a second and third game are even made.

Duke @ Aug 25th 2008 10:44AM

I recall there being a human/machine choice to be made. I played the game yesterday, and it specifically asked me which side I wanted to go with. Just an FYI.

WhoMe @ Aug 25th 2008 10:49AM

Duke: yeah the choice *is* there. But it has no impact on the game or story, there is no penalty. In fact, even the cutscenes do not change to reflect your choice.

It's as meaningless as "do you want fries with that?".

I'm just saying that they promised to do a lot of things but didn't really deliver on any of them.

ericdrum @ Aug 25th 2008 10:52AM

The Human/Cyborg choice isn't in the game? Of course it is. You are lying about playing it. The game forces you to decide after the first level. You can't progress after the first level without choosing.

Duke @ Aug 25th 2008 10:52AM

Oh, ok,I see what you're saying now. I haven't played that far through it to see if it had an effect on the story. That does sound pretty weak.

T @ Aug 25th 2008 11:03AM

He's saying the choice was there, but had no impact on the game.

Similiar to the choice made at the end of the first or second chapter of FFX-2. Sure you can choose who to give the sphere to, but either way the ending is the same.

Or almost the entire game in Fable. You can be the biggest prick in the universe, but the actual ending (and your character's ultimate fate) is decided 100% by the one choice you make at the end of the game.

Hooray for "choice".

Duke @ Aug 25th 2008 11:06AM

Yeah, I got that. See: " Oh, ok ,I see what you're saying now."

T @ Aug 25th 2008 1:07PM

Hopefully you'll recognize that there was a delay in response due to Joystiq's commenting system. I don't know what took so long for it to get through.

It was intended as a response before the last few posts were written.

pkpk523 @ Aug 25th 2008 1:13PM

yeah, not sure why WhoMe got downvoted. Me and my friend played it this weekend and so far as we could tell, your decision didn't really change anything. Now I might be wrong, if you continue to play through, it could actually make a difference, but we'd already given up and were bored with it a few hours in, so I guess we'll never know......I'm hugely disappointed by this one cuz I've been looking forward to it for a while now. I do like the style of the creations....that's about the only positive i can give here.

Kevin Morrell @ Aug 25th 2008 2:27PM

Actually, the choices you made in FFX-2 did affect the ending. You could only get 100%, and as such the best ending, if you gave the sphere to the Youth League.

killian @ Aug 25th 2008 10:08AM

This guy needs a PR person there is a time to talk and there is a time to wait and see what your game has accomplished...

Vcize @ Aug 25th 2008 10:08AM

Facts and logic won't stop the douchebags from shouting "LOLZ 10 YEARS IN DEVELOPMENT FOR A 6.5/7?? HAHAHAHA."

Go on, douches.

danny @ Aug 25th 2008 10:31AM

Even if it wasn't in development for a decade it's still an wholly average game. Does its five year development cycle mean it's a better game? I don't follow your ass backwards logic.

And yes everyone's entitled to your opinion but yours sucks. There's following a review like a sheep then there's realizing a review makes good points about the gameplay and bugs in it.

Danny @ Aug 25th 2008 10:35AM

Sorry *everyone's entitled to their opinion...

And LOLZ 10 YEARS IN DEVELOPMENT FOR A 6.5/7?? HAHAHAHA. Your play Mr. Gator.

Vcize @ Aug 25th 2008 10:46AM

I'm not sure what you're having difficulty following. I never said it made the game better. Personally I like the game, but I know many people don't and even I will admit that I've played 15 other games this year are as good or better. It's just an ok/good game.

But, that doesn't change the fact that the trolls (who've probably never played the game) will come out with their stupid 10 years line to use whenever they feel like being a douchehole. Just because you don't like something, or even because something's not good, doesn't mean you make bullshit up about it.

It's no different than some xbox troll saying "HAHA THE PS3 SUX BECUZ IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY GAMES" because they saw someone say it on the internet a year and a half ago.

Danny @ Aug 25th 2008 10:52AM

There's reviewing games and then there's straight up bashing a game with no reasoning. That's why some people review games and most of us mindlessly bullshit on the internet.

Drew @ Aug 25th 2008 10:56AM

Ahhh yes. 5 years means it's ok to be letdown after Denis "douchebag" Dyack said it was the coolest thing since the wheel.

Jakka(Naked Peach Brigade) @ Aug 25th 2008 11:01AM

Yes, except that a lot of community and reviewers seems to really hate Dyack and spread that hate onto the game.If it was made by Valve,Rockstar or Blizzard everybody would be orgasmic over how excellent this game is.

Still, I'm pretty sure that Dyack was right when he said that reviewers just "don't get" his game.In fact, looking at Wikipedia round-up it seems like a lot of them were nitpicking for the sake of it.

"Among reasons given for the average score were problems such as mediocre game play"

It's a fucking hack & slash! You slash up a bunch monster, loot their bodies and move on.It's like criticizing an FPS because all you ever do is shoot the same enemies over and over again.I didn't hear about Painkiller being criticized because of that.

"Also criticized was the fact that only the Bio-Engineer could heal itself: the review stated that "player death for the other four classes is routine." The reviewer concluded that co-op play is the only way to enjoy the game requiring one player to heal both using the Bio-Engineer."

It's supposed to be a co-op game! And what would be the point in playing a weak healer class if every other class could heal itself, anyway?

"Also criticized was the absence of the story due to a lack of cut-scenes in the co-op, although the reviewer stated that this was not necessarily a bad thing, referring to the game's plot as a "train wreck.""

Lack of cutscenes? Is it really that fucking important? A lot of games don't have co-op cutscenes and all me & my mates do is skip them anyway. As for story, a mix between Cybernetic Sci-Fi and Norse Mythology was one of the most original settings I ever came across in a video game.Also I'm not sure if people who gave games like Halo and CoD 9's and 10's can possibly have any credibility when criticising stories and plots.

So, is it just me or do these reviewers have their own Dyack Death Altar and/or never played a Dungeon Crawler in their entire life? I've only played the demo but I'm pretty sure that the game has everything that a typical H&S Fan could ask for.

j.howlett @ Aug 25th 2008 11:56AM

what reviews i saw of painkiller weren't good then yahtzee said it was cool and the masses flocked to it. the game never made it into general discussion until ZP and is barely brought up now. the attachment of scores thing is ridiculous to me. one early score for the PA game was 4 or 4.2, but the cult of penny arcade and people thinking for themselves, contradictory i know, led to people trying the game.

why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 25th 2008 12:07PM

It astonishes me that there are Dyack apologists.

He made a mediocre game and in public is trying to make out like the work just isn't giving him a fair shake.

Hey Denis: next time, don't oversell your game and you won't have a problem with people saying it doesn't meet expectations. And as to your beef with internet boards making hay picking on you and your game, you only give them more power by making a big deal about it.

If this game didn't get a fair shake (and that doesn't appear to be the case to me), then boo hoo. Go cry on Tim Schaefer's shoulder.

BananaBoat @ Aug 25th 2008 1:25PM

I took all of my early impressions of the game from screenshots and trailers, not from garbage spewed by D.D. His long ass rant on the 1up yours podcast did somewhat make me want him to fail though.

That said, I tried the demo, and the game is beyond mediocre. I'm with 1up and their score of 42. Putting this game in my gamefly queue would be a waste of a queue slot, and that's coming from the guy that rented haze just on the off chance that it wasn't freaking terrible (it was).

Silicon Knights seriously needs a PR team.

Jakka(Naked Peach Brigade) @ Aug 25th 2008 2:10PM

I'm not a Dyack apologist.All I'm saying is that most reviewers are deliberately trying to dig up some shit on this game. Take this infamous 5.0 Review from GamingShotgun.

http://www.gamingshogun.com/Article/2162/Too_Human_Review.html

Now find me a REAL REASON as to why Too Human is bad.Because according to this "review": Average Graphics(Disagree!),Bad Camera(Agree but it's not that bad.),Long Death Sequence(WHOLE 10 SECONDS!OMG I NEED TO KILL MONSTARZ FASTER!!1) and Clichéd Bad Dialogue(Because we all know that every single AAA Game has excellent script, especially Oblivion!) is apparently enough to justify 5.0.

Find me a good review of the game and we'll talk.

BananaBoat @ Aug 25th 2008 3:24PM

Now I'm a bit confused. Metacritic says Too Human got a 42 from 1up, and 1up's own site says they gave it a B. I call shenanigans.

Jakka - There are plenty of well written, well thought out reviews that completely trash the game. Reviews such as this one http://www.giantbomb.com/too-human/61-20499/reviews/ I understand the frustration though, since so many so called "reviewers" are really just sensationalists that say inflammatory things for the sake of getting extra hits.

Jakka(Naked Peach Brigade) @ Aug 25th 2008 5:15PM

Thank you, BananaBoat.

I really loved this review.Clear,great to read and very fair towards the game.

It seems like a lot of reviewers could learn from Jeff.

BananaBoat @ Aug 25th 2008 6:02PM

Nevermind, the B was an aggregate of the official review (the one that actually counts) and the user scores.

1up gave it a C Minus. Which, oddly, would be something like a 71/100, and not...a 42.

Jellodyne @ Aug 25th 2008 10:09AM

Would it be worse if it were a ten year development cycle, or if they had announced the game (with screenshots) at the 1999 E3 and then didn't actually start making it for FIVE YEARS?

Likely the truth is that this current version of the game has been in the making for 5 years, and the that there is a previous version which shall never be spoken of again.

killian @ Aug 25th 2008 10:10AM

Oppps sorry about that.....DD post so embarrassing...

FOXHOUND @ Aug 25th 2008 10:17AM

He needs to be photoshopped wearing "flamebait" t-shirt.

Fenix @ Aug 25th 2008 11:14AM

Affirmative.

Raikage (GOLDEN Gun Of The Patriots) @ Aug 25th 2008 11:24AM

Seconded

This needs to happen.

heretrix @ Aug 25th 2008 10:31AM

Give it Denis. Please. Just fix the damn camera for the next game, Ok?

heretrix @ Aug 25th 2008 10:32AM

Give it a rest Denis. Please. Just fix the damn camera for the next game, Ok?

heretrix @ Aug 25th 2008 10:33AM

Give it a rest. Sorry.

MrSpaceCowboy @ Aug 25th 2008 10:34AM

I'm sure Duke Nukem Forever will score higher than 7 when it finally drops in 2015.

Until that day arrives, I'll just be reading this newspaper.

Doo dee doo dee doo...

Jim @ Aug 25th 2008 10:36AM

I may be going against the grain here, but I and my kids have thoroughly enjoyed Too Human thus far. I think it's a great game. Not perfect, mind you, but far better than the reviews would suggest.

heretrix @ Aug 25th 2008 10:42AM

I agree. I'm having a ball with it, even though the camera makes me want to shoot my TV.

How anybody came up with the GREAT idea of having the camera swing around so much during battle is beyond me, but it is irritating as hell.

ericdrum @ Aug 25th 2008 10:49AM

TH was just freaking awesome in my book. Must underrated game ever. It's too bad every lame reviewer had to use the 10 year tag line thinking that they were original or witty. Seriously, these guys(reviewers) work in the industry. No game, not even Duke Nukem Forever is "in development" for that long. Who is going to pay a bunch of developers to work for ten years and not see a profit at all in those ten?

Danny @ Aug 25th 2008 10:46AM

If this was your first real experience with a dungeon crawler or you highly enjoy this genre I can see someone liking it. But if you're not a big fan of the genre it can be a little meh. Not terrible but pretty unspectacular.

Danny @ Aug 25th 2008 11:01AM

@ericdrum
See this is the type of person I can't understand. They state their opinion as total fact with no backup at all. Basically they say everyone should like a game because they did. It's not underrated, you simply enjoy it because it struck a chord with you, whether you enjoy the genre or it was your first real exposure to it. But it is by no means a great title that got a bad rap. I didn't enjoy this game and most of us won't, that shouldn't stop you from having fun with it. Just don't go saying everyone should have fun with it.

Danny @ Aug 25th 2008 11:01AM

Madeira @ Aug 25th 2008 11:14AM

Agreed.

TH is one of those games that gives back what you put into it. I played quite a bit over the weekend and found it extremely deep, challenging and fun.

@Danny: I've played my share of dungeon crawlers- it's my favorite genre- and TH makes most games in this genre seem like kids' stuff.

Knight Marquise @ Aug 25th 2008 12:06PM

Jim
Totally agree. Finished TH this weekend as human. Going through it again to cap the level, and then restart and choose the cybernetic route. Only complaint is the wonky camera. Makes me miss the days of Diablo.

@ Danny

I did enjoy this game and alot of us will, that shouldn't stop you from hating on it. Just don't go saying everyone should hate it.

Fixed.

#28 @ Aug 26th 2008 3:28AM

Game sucks.

Jakka(Naked Peach Brigade) @ Aug 25th 2008 10:39AM

I'm pretty sure that the exact time Too Human as we know it started was the moment they acquired UE3 as they had to remake the entire game in that engine.Sure, the concepts were there but the thing that really kills vaporware games is that they keep changing engines to keep up with the current technology.Then they have to start making the game all over again in that new engine.Once they're 50% done, chances are that the game looks terribly on the now dated engine and they need a new one.Thus the cycle continues.

This is the development hell.

xtremuuuu @ Aug 25th 2008 11:04AM

Nuke Dukem reference made me laugh out loud mid class. Bravo!

Bob @ Aug 25th 2008 11:08AM

Even if it was 10 years it wouldnt make sense, xbox 360 hasnt been out for 10 years so how can they make a game for a console that didnt even exist?

Duke @ Aug 25th 2008 11:14AM

Because it was supposedly started for other consoles. Commonly people talk about it starting for the Nintendo GameCube & the PS1.

(I think if it was just an argument of being started for the 360 the rest of us would have caught onto it not existing for 10 years.)

why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 25th 2008 12:24PM

Kameo (360 launch title) was first shown on the N64.

It seems designing a game for a console that doesn't exist yet isn't as unusual as you think.

Draco Basileus @ Aug 25th 2008 11:16AM

Sure the game is rough around the edges, sure it took 4+ years to develop, sure some of the dialogue and story elements are vague, and the camera is a bit wonky.

But you know what? It's fun to play.

And on a few technical notes: There are no "Loading" screens save the one at the very beginning of the game, when you first start playing. After that, every cutscene, area load, and menu transition happens seamlessly. Even the transitions to Cyberspace happen without a load screen. That's pretty damn impressive, and not something they could have done with the Unreal engine (show me one Unreal Engine game that doesn't have level loading or texture pop-in).

I'm glad they made the change when they did. On top of that, the game looks good in action (no slowdown, lots of enemies) and the art design is pretty sweet.

We all know what SK and Dyack did wrong. How about we start pointing out what they did right.

If you don't like the game, then fine, you are entitled to your opinion. Just learn to start keeping it to yourself. I don't go around slamming Nintendo and Smash Brothers or Pokemon fans, even though I have a hard time find the appeal for those types of games. Or slamming Sony for its failures to launch Home or the limited online experience it offers (despite what Sony fanboys say, it does not compare to XBox Live).

And before you freak out, that I am a XBox fanboy I just want you to know that I own both a PS3, XBox 360, Gamecube, SNES, NES, PS1, PS2, PSP, XBox 1, etc, etc.