EGM Live 03/12/07

[Reznor]

In lieu of answering reasonably and knowledgably about the game, then, we must in the meantime deal with "it's going to be better than literature" degree hype. Me, I react with scorn, some amusement and trepidation over how much money is being hosed into the TH Trilogy. Surely people at Microsoft have seen that Lost in La Mancha doco ?

Mmmhmm, you love big words... go write me a MGS fanfic now.

[PleoMax]

In lieu of answering reasonably and knowledgably about the game, then, we must in the meantime deal with "it's going to be better than literature" degree hype. Me, I react with scorn, some amusement and trepidation over how much money is being hosed into the TH Trilogy. Surely people at Microsoft have seen that Lost in La Mancha doco ?

...

Denis just, focus on the game man, do it for the gamers who care, just don't pay attention to the haters. **** them ya know? Do it like jaffe and show gaf the middle finger.

[neonvision]

Which is fine because everyone and their mothers realise that it is a preview. If LBP gets a horrible review, than the glowing preview won't amount to a hill of beans. We know the difference between a preview and a final product. HONEST. You're not giving us any credit here.

EXACTLY! I don't understand Denis's arguments - they seem all over the place. Bad demo = bad preview. So what if LBP got everyone excited - no they didn't play it but we all could tell the amazing potential in that game. If the game ends up sucking in the end, then so be it - but I'm a bit insulted that Denis thinks that because a game has a good preview means we'll buy the game months, if not a year away knowing that the game turned out to not live up to its potential.

[funkmasterb]

There are many reasons why we showed this build. I really wish we would not have shown it. I have answered this question so many times. Read the Ice Bucket - its right from my mouth. Honest criticism is exactly what you are not going to get from previewing games that are not finished - I am saying it is not possible to evaluate games properly before they are done. Despite anyones best efforts. I think the guys from EGM gave their best efforts but their methods are fundamentally flawed. What was the criteria for the previews? Games that were playable or that someone else would demo. If video games are fundamentally based on interactivity how can anyone preview/rate/judge a game without interacting with it at all? Most of the "awesome" previews in the E3 issue were games that the previewer did not play. I think my point was best hit home with Big Little Planet. You have everyone in the room saying how awesome it is. When I asked how it played did you notice the reaction? No one really has any idea if this game is good or not - nor can they - nor did they necessarily even realize this as they were talking about how good it is. That is my point if that helps at all.

Wisest thing to do is branch off the mainline once you've got things looking good (EGM preview) and making very controlled careful changes to the thing that you have working well. If you actually did what I think you did (integrated a new code dump from epic) a couple weeks before the show, well, that's your own fault.

Also..the whole throwing stones at games which decided to have a developer lead a demo of the section they've brought - get real, vertical slice demo's provide a bar for the team to reach for and reavaluate if anything's been lost month down the road. Not only that, but those sections are often chosen because they have truly innovative gameplay, and are of great interest to gamers who are interested in the areas games are exploring.


.


I think what's most upsetting are the personal attacks on Mark's credibility as a journalist in the podcast. You can't expect to lob those kind of implied personal insults and expect not to hear anything similar come back your way.

[fallout]

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6999/wtfninjaswi4ac7.gif Denis just, focus on the game man, do it for the gamers who care, just don't pay attention to the haters. **** them ya know? Do it like jaffe and show gaf the middle finger.

How many times does it have to be said. We are not "hating" on Too Human, here.

[m0dus]

Hey dude, it's called branching off the mainline once you've got things looking good (EGM preview) and making very controlled careful changes to the thing that you have working well. If you actually did what I think you did (integrated a new code dump from epic) a couple weeks before the show, well, that's your own damn fault.

Hey, here's a thought--try NOT to sound too condescending in your reply?

Game development, as we ALL know, is a tricky thing. sometimes you have time to iron out issues before the big show, sometimes you don't. DD and SK got the brunt of a truly epic load of bullshit, most of which was out of line, for what? one poorly coded build? Take them to task for that, but not to the degree that some people were doing so (personal insults, etc)

[PleoMax]

Hey, here's a thought--try NOT to sound too condescending in your reply? Game development, as we ALL know, is a tricky thing. sometimes you have time to iron out issues before the big show, sometimes you don't. DD and SK got the brunt of a truly epic load of bullshit, most of which was out of line, for what? one poorly coded build? Take them to task for that, but not to the degree that some people were doing so (personal insults, etc)

Apparently GAf is full of developers. All of them with bachelor of Wannabe.

Just sayin...it's cool that people criticize the way shit was said on the podcast, what's not fine is when you are actually telling the Dev how to Develop. It's cool to criticize the E3 demo, it's trollish when you label the whole project a big piece of shit about to fall on our heads.

That Dyack is able to take alot of shit from this board and still try to connect to the comunity that cares for the game in this board is surprising. Since the natural course would be to, in david jaffe faction, make an insult on somebody's mother and give gaf the FU and walk away.

[border]

I think my point was best hit home with Big Little Planet. You have everyone in the room saying how awesome it is. When I asked how it played did you notice the reaction? No one really has any idea if this game is good or not - nor can they - nor did they necessarily even realize this as they were talking about how good it is. That is my point if that helps at all.

Denis Dyack in The Ice Bucket:

Why did we go to the show [E3] given this scenario? There are many answers, but I’ll respond simply with we did, and we can’t take it back. I guess we went in with the hope that people could overlook some of the technical issues and see the potential for Too Human. It is, after all, only a demo.

To give a good Too Human preview, people would have to ignore everything that they played and buy into whatever PR hype was being sold at the time. Yet at the same time, you hammer EGM for buying into PR hype on Little Big Planet.

As others have pointed out, it seems like you really want to have it both ways. If a playable game sucks, you should ignore the gameplay and just react to whatever the developer promises. If you can't play the game, then it's apparently wrong to react to whatever the developer promises.

[Uncle]

So there is no actual Too Human stuff in this podcast? Just these dudes arguing about previewing games?

[Jonnyboy117]

I can't believe Dyack is pompous enough to think he's the one who started making 3D games with fixed, unmovable cameras. Nor can I believe that the EGM guys let him get away with that claim.....especially Shane, who is always pretty good with game trivia. I'm 99% positive that there was no camera manipulation in Devil May Cry......and even ignoring that, Shane could've easily named Resident Evil: Code Veronica or Dino Crisis or Gauntlet Legends or any of the multitude of fixed-camera titles from the 32-bit era. Even more pompous Dyack's assertion that it's HIS influence that's the reason that the static camera has come into vogue. Eternal Darkness was largely a Resident Evil ripoff, and that's where the fixed, cinematic camera really got its start.

You are confusing a fixed camera with a dynamic, automatic camera. Sure, there were plenty of 32-bit games with fixed camera angles, Resident Evil and Final Fantasy VII being the most obvious examples. There were even fully polygonal games which used the same tactic. But Eternal Darkness WAS innovative by taking that scheme and moving the camera based on your position in the room. It's not a perfect system, but in general the camera angles in ED are much less annoying than in the static camera games like RE. The camera follows you around corners and usually lets you see the whole room from an angle that makes the controls logical. That is an impressive feat that has not often been recreated even in the years since ED was released. God of War does a good bit of it, and now you're seeing Super Mario Galaxy use an even more dynamic approach to the camera, but ED was undoubtedly one of the pioneers of this technique.

[dirtmonkey37]

There are many reasons why we showed this build. I really wish we would not have shown it. I have answered this question so many times. Read the Ice Bucket - its right from my mouth. Honest criticism is exactly what you are not going to get from previewing games that are not finished - I am saying it is not possible to evaluate games properly before they are done. Despite anyones best efforts. I think the guys from EGM gave their best efforts but their methods are fundamentally flawed. What was the criteria for the previews? Games that were playable or that someone else would demo. If video games are fundamentally based on interactivity how can anyone preview/rate/judge a game without interacting with it at all? Most of the "awesome" previews in the E3 issue were games that the previewer did not play. I think my point was best hit home with Big Little Planet. You have everyone in the room saying how awesome it is. When I asked how it played did you notice the reaction? No one really has any idea if this game is good or not - nor can they - nor did they necessarily even realize this as they were talking about how good it is. That is my point if that helps at all.

Thank you for the reply. I appreciate it.

So, this leads me to ask, had EGM given the E3 Too Human build an "excellent" instead of a "terrible" and justified their reasons for the "E3-build-rating," would you still feel that previews were unjustified? Of course, no one wants to take away good press for their game, but would you, in the back of your mind, maybe chuckle at the thought of the game journalists thinking that they are playing a build that almost 100% resembles the final game experience, when they really aren't?

[m0dus]

Denis Dyack in The Ice Bucket: Why did we go to the show [E3] given this scenario? There are many answers, but I’ll respond simply with we did, and we can’t take it back. I guess we went in with the hope that people could overlook some of the technical issues and see the potential for Too Human. It is, after all, only a demo. To give a good Too Human preview, people would have to ignore everything that they played and buy into whatever PR hype was being sold at the time. Yet at the same time, you hammer EGM for buying into PR hype on Little Big Planet. As others have pointed out, it seems like you really want to have it both ways. If a playable game sucks, you should ignore the gameplay and just react to whatever the developer promises. If you can't play the game, then it's apparently wrong to react to whatever the developer promises.

But this is another issue: EGM DID have a HANDS ON preview of the game BEFORE E3. So previous positive impressions were, arguably, more warranted than people swooning over non-playable footage of LBP. That may be the difference he is referring to, in EGM's case. And it's certainly justifiable, IMO.

[border]

There were even fully polygonal games which used the same tactic. But Eternal Darkness WAS innovative by taking that scheme and moving the camera based on your position in the room.

Huh? Am I missing something here? It seems like there were a ton of pre-ED games that did this. The aforementioned Gauntlet Legends did this, though Metal Gear Solid is the more striking example. You couldn't directly manipulate the camera through controller input (aside from the first person binoculars), but if you wanted a different angle you could manipulate yourself into a position that gave you the angle you wanted. Want to see into the distance or around a corner? Back up against the wall. Camera shot was entirely based around positioning.

Having worked on MGS:TTS, it's fairly surprising that Dyack would want to usurp the "first ever" honor from Kojima.

[dirtmonkey37]

Wisest thing to do is branch off the mainline once you've got things looking good (EGM preview) and making very controlled careful changes to the thing that you have working well. If you actually did what I think you did (integrated a new code dump from epic) a couple weeks before the show, well, that's your own fault. Also..the whole throwing stones at games which decided to have a developer lead a demo of the section they've brought - get real, vertical slice demo's provide a bar for the team to reach for and reavaluate if anything's been lost month down the road. Not only that, but those sections are often chosen because they have truly innovative gameplay, and are of great interest to gamers who are interested in the areas games are exploring. . I think what's most upsetting are the personal attacks on Mark's credibility as a journalist in the podcast. You can't expect to lob those kind of implied personal insults and expect not to hear anything similar come back your way.

What you said there is incorrect. If I'm not mistaken, the EGM cover story on Too Human did not release "a few weeks" before E3. Even if it had, you still have to take into consideration that this is the print business, and therefore you often get access to a game a long while earlier than when the issue covering the game you saw is released. In other words, Shane must have saw the game a month before (maybe a bit less) and then he had to conjure up the glorious cover story for the title.

All in all, there was a vast amount of time between when EGM saw it and the E3 build was showcased. Do you think Silicon Knights is going to put game development on hold for two months so they can have a good "E3" showing? Two more months means two more hats of money Microsoft bleeds. Silicon Knights had to incorporate their new streaming technology in there to work in tandem with UE3, and they did it after they showed the press in their own offices. They then contineud work on the game (adding in the streaming tech).

Finally, you need to realize that building a demo isn't easy. Having taken a computer science course (or half of it at least), taking out a portion of code, or a portion of "game" (assuming both function similarly) can put the rest of the content at risk. It's like a bug. Sometimes when you fix a bug, new ones are created. I would assume that likewise, once you take out a chunk, new problems persist. Creating a demo takes a considerable amount of time not working on the full game and polishing aspects of it. It's almost like a seperate project. Then, you return to your inital project....

[Gek54]

Write up smight up, who remembers a write ups for more than ten minutes?

Its the god awful trailer that has caused the greatest and longest lasting damage. You cant excuse a camera problem in a trailer either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LssCH...elated&search=

People expect trailers to give you a sense of what that game will be like and what did we see?..broken gameplay and horrid animation. Sure we can give the benefit of the doubt that its early but the idea that someone thought it was ok to show it in that state, especially in a trailer, makes you really wonder how lax they will be on the quality of the final product. I dont remember seeing a trailer that bad since the PSone era.

I am hoping the final game will be good but seriously, what in this trailer is there to be excited about?

[dirtmonkey37]

Write up smight up, who remembers a write ups for more than ten minutes? Its the god awful trailer that has caused the greatest and longest lasting damage. You cant excuse a camera problem in a trailer either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LssCH...elated&search= People expect trailers to give you a sense of what that game will be like and what did we see?..broken gameplay and horrid animation. Sure we can give the benefit of the doubt that its early but the idea that someone thought it was ok to show it in that state, especially in a trailer, makes you really wonder how lax they will be on the quality of the final product. I dont remember seeing a trailer that bad since the PSone era. I am hoping the final game will be good but seriously, what in this trailer is there to be excited about?

Oh Gosh, the more I look at that trailer the more I...err.....Wow.

They should have pulled a Rockstar, but the way the industry works, I guess, they couldn't. They needed to show it off. It hurt, but they had to. There is only Rockstar who can do that -- to wait and wait.

[border]

But this is another issue: EGM DID have a HANDS ON preview of the game BEFORE E3. So previous positive impressions were, arguably, more warranted than people swooning over non-playable footage of LBP. That may be the difference he is referring to, in EGM's case. And it's certainly justifiable, IMO.

It's entirely unfair to assume that EGM is a single entity that must maintain a single, consistent opinion. It's pretty clear that the magazine is a result of many people with divergent opinoins and tastes.

Should Mark's negative impressions be automatically overridden by Shane's previous positive opinion? It seems unjust that a writer should have to alter their impressions just to keep them consistent with someone else's secondhand accounts of the game.

[Karma Kramer]

Heres a quick summary of my thoughts...

-Games can play and appear completely different throughout their development
-Early demo's or builds therefore do not benefit the consumer
-Some Developers try and bypass this by releasing "target" videos
-This leads to false expectations (Fable/Killzone) and ultimately leads to dissapointment
-Previews generally are nothing more then a rinse and repeat of "we give _____ the benefit of the doubt that this game will achieve ______ when released."
-This although keeps awareness for the product doesn't really tell us much and it really doesn't allow publications to be very critical of the products
-Finally with a plan similar to what Denis was talking about, games would basically be announced 6 months prior to release (no more delays) and they would be previewed when completion is near... so critics can be as straightforward and accurate as possible.
-This plan would benefit everyone and would prevent confusion and dissapointment for the Hardcore fans.

[Unison]

One key thing about Previews... They basically sell hardware.

I don't want to start any console-specific flamewars here, but consoles would seem a helluva lot less appealing if we didn't have some idea of what the future software lineup would bring on said consoles.


Another thing though... games have been previewed as they are now for years and years... at least as long as I've been a gamer. If suddenly game previews are a threat, that's got nothing to do with the previews themselves. It seems obvious that it's a business decision, driven by marketers who want to control the way that their game is presented to the world, and obscure and potential flaws as long as possible. This is no different than the film industry, where lead times have gotten shorter and shorter for critics over the years, and now more and more films aren't being screened for critics at all, yet are still successful due to a public that is less than discerning.

[m0dus]

It's entirely unfair to assume that EGM is a single entity that must maintain a single, consistent opinion. It's pretty clear that the magazine is a result of many people with divergent opinoins and tastes. Should Mark's negative impressions be automatically overridden by Shane's previous positive opinion? It seems unjust that a writer should have to alter their impressions just to keep them consistent with someone else's secondhand accounts of the game.

No, they shouldn't be overridden, the must be taken into account along with the larger impression. He obviously didn't, and as result, may have done the game and the readers a disservice. You don't JUST tell one side of the story if you intimately know both.

[Denis Dyack]

I thought I would link this as it is really well said. Why Denis Dyack is Right (And Why Shane Bettenhausen Isn’t Wrong) - Too Human.net

Enjoy!

[Gowans007]

I thought I would link this as it is really well said. Why Denis Dyack is Right (And Why Shane Bettenhausen Isn’t Wrong) - Too Human.net Enjoy!

Denis haha thx & Good on you for jumping into the Lions Den man, it can medieval flame pit here but good on you for standing firm with your points.

this could go on forever till the games comes out, so I think I'll wait till then, after all its all just about a game thats ment to be fun and played yeah?

[Denis Dyack]

Denis haha thx & Good on you for jumping into the Lions Den man, it can medieval flame pit here but good on you for standing firm with your points. this could go on forever till the games comes out, so I think I'll wait till then, after all its all just about a game thats ment to be fun and played yeah?

yeah. :) I agree for the gamer. Thanks for complement. However, I would add for the industry, I feel it means more. But this is not forum to forward that change - not fully anyway ;).

[Ghost]

Good podcast, nice to see a developer come and question a journalists viewpoint (shame it had to be Mark though) to his face for a change.


It's easy to see Dennis' point of view on not previewing games because his are so story heavy and movie-like, like a lot of RPGs they are experiences that are only truly enjoyed when you're heavily invested in whats happening. I dont think this applies to all types of games though.

[Mustaphadamus]

yeah. :) I agree for the gamer. Thanks for complement. However, I would add for the industry, I feel it means more. But this is not forum to forward that change - not fully anyway ;).

Do you think the problems at hand being partly on Video Game Journalism and how it handles its coverage as well as the way the industry works as a whole is a result of the industry still being fairly young? I mean to say in terms of entertainment video games are still in their teen age years so to speak as compared to say music, television and movies. I mean to say do you think these issues you have brought up are a result of growing pains?

[Denis Dyack]

Do you think the problems at hand being partly on Video Game Journalism and how it handles its coverage as well as the way the industry works as a whole is a result of the industry still being fairly young? I mean to say in terms of entertainment video games are still in their teen age years so to speak as compared to say music, television and movies. I mean to say do you think these issues you have brought up are a result of growing pains?

Yes, I would say both are true but I would lean more towards the industry being fairly young.

[Blackace]

Denis, I'd like to applaud you for participating in the EGM Live podcast and talk openly and honestly about your game, the E3 review, what you consider is wrong about the industry and what you and your company are personally doing to make the industry better. Most people are not familiar with the game development process (including the media) and have no idea about what goes into making a good game. I felt this fact was especially evident during the podcast where a couple of very important (IMHO) questions and were left unaddressed. A little more insight into what actually happened may be helpful for all sides. 1. Part of the argument from EGM's side was "we were reviewing what was shown, if it wasn't ready why did you show it?". In software, especially games, it often suddently becomes imperative to show something to someone so I think asking a developer this question makes no sense at all. A more appropriate question that I'd like to ask you know is this: You are an experienced developer with several games under your belt so you know this thing happens. Different teams handle this problem different ways (tagging last good working code, working new tech in on private branches, etc) but they usually keep something working relatively well ready to go at any moment. I'm sure SK's development methodology is good so I figure something pretty cataclysmic happened on your side that caused you to go with something that was dramatically worse than what you would have liked to have shown. If people know this, all the questions about "why did you show it if it wasn't ready" will end. 2. Another question asked in the interview was "Why did you let people play it? Why not a rolling video?". From the way you talked about the dynamic auto camera and the control scheme you wanted people to experience it, so you threw out some caveats about the recently added tech and thought they'd ignore the issues and imagine the final product. In theory this is a good idea, however, as I said before I think most people do not understand the game development process and only know if they like a game or not and whether a game is pretty or not. Personally, I think that when one previews a game they are actually using all the criteria they use for a review with the added disclaimer that it is just a preview. Two related questions. Would it have been possible for you to do a more limited build with less technical issues(to allow the user to get a feel for gameplay) along with a rolling video? Also, if you previewed the E3 Too Human build in 75 words or less what would you have said? 3. You mentioned that game previews are not good for the industry. I agree with you on this point however I'm curious about one thing. You allowed a dude to come to your offices and do a preview and seemed happy with that preview yet when the E3 preview (of a build that you admit had issues) came out and negated the positive preview you seemed to have problems. I'd like to know if your game preview opinion was formed before E3 or after it?

boy these questions need to be answered.. l

[sado]

Yes, I would say both are true but I would lean more towards the industry being fairly young.

Denis I am not sure why you did the podcast if the main reason to do it was to moan and groan about how the game was perceived by the press. We after all have free thought and as the press we have a duty to tell the truth to our readers, if that hurts you, so be it. If you guys were forced to show the game by MS then that is there fault but it is not the press' fault for giving you guys poor previews. The entire podcast I felt like I was hearing the tantrum of a 2 year old "WAAAA you didnt like my game! WAAA!". The 100+ minutes could have been solely spent on talking about the game and building new press about the game but instead you chose to talk about the E3 build for about 60 minutes. All you ended up doing was getting the listeners and the press even more mad at you.

By bringing up the E3 demo again you brought the issue back up again, so now the issue is now in front of every gamer's face, and now everyone is aware of a demo again that should have been dead and forgotten. With all of that said I would like to say I get your point about games being previewed too early at these press events but that solely lies on you and your publisher's shoulders and not the press. If you show the game early you're taking a chance that your game will not be well received. The press gained from showing the demo early is a big reason to show it early but in the end it's risk/reward situation. When you make a game you're sticking your neck out there and you have to be willing to take what comes your way, otherwise get out of the business. Game development is a risky business but so is every aspect of the entertainment industry.

[Scotch]

Penny Arcade listened to the podcast:

Denis Dyack is still smarting over previews of Too Human written last year regarding a demo he admits was bad, and in EGM's most recent podcast he takes an opportunity to interrogate one of the men responsible. He spends the second hour of the podcast making a series of completely unsourced and unverifiable claims about his product, which - after having been browbeaten for the first hour - his gentle hosts are understandably reluctant to analyze. I met Denis a few years ago at E3, back when they were still vassals of Nintendo, and our kinship was immediate. I took no pleasure in writing what I did about Too Human, a note that I think is unambiguous in the text. He is angry at this specific instance, a show where he was more or less forced to present a product that was out of phase, but he's also angry in general that developers need to take time out to prance beautiful ponies before a sneering press corps. I get it, absolutely. He identifies very deeply with this product, and when someone is cruel to it he takes it personally. This, too, is something I understand with perfect clarity. A motif he adopts in the podcast and elsewhere is that his game will be great, and then we'll all be sorry - like an unstable, teen-aged pyrokinetic who swears his hot vengeance upon the mean boys in gym. I won't be made to apologize for telling people the truth, so that one's gonna be a tough sell. What I can do, what I will do, what we do whenever the facts change is to change our minds. If Too Human is excellent, and their pedigree suggests that it will be so, expect to hear that truth echoed throughout our lavish marble audience chamber. All of this started precisely because people fully expect to be amazed by the man and the company he leads. There are worse problems than this. He's placing a lot more value on the strength of an ancient preview than gamers do, no doubt because of his proximity to the subject - but he should take less stock in overgrown Interweb detritus. Home and LittleBigPlanet provide a powerful counterpoint: it only takes a single inspired maneuver to uproot years of sin and misery. We are gamers, after all. When you succeed, we succeed also. When we talk about the media consciousness of The Web, we're talking about something that is largely ahistorical and completely obsessed with immediacy. A tight demo dropped onto Live - either before or concurrent with the retail release - would see every grim prophecy obliterated.

[sado]

Oh god that is classic.

[nelsonroyale]

Write up smight up, who remembers a write ups for more than ten minutes? Its the god awful trailer that has caused the greatest and longest lasting damage. You cant excuse a camera problem in a trailer either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LssCH...elated&search= People expect trailers to give you a sense of what that game will be like and what did we see?..broken gameplay and horrid animation. Sure we can give the benefit of the doubt that its early but the idea that someone thought it was ok to show it in that state, especially in a trailer, makes you really wonder how lax they will be on the quality of the final product. I dont remember seeing a trailer that bad since the PSone era. I am hoping the final game will be good but seriously, what in this trailer is there to be excited about?

The bit where he attacks the first enemy, the blue skeleton thing has me cracking up for some reason. I love the swipe, the 'ding' and the dramatic collapse

peace

[Tieno]

Is that Mark Mcdonald? I predict that'll be his new avatar! Great comic!

[nelsonroyale]

Penny Arcade listened to the podcast: snip

blatant quip, anyway I dont agree with this whole argument...or at least I think it has been thrown out of proportion.

Games such as gears, Outcast, FFXII, Okami, Resident Evil 4 were shown very early in development and people were super hyped...same with LBP.

peace

[Razoric]

He's placing a lot more value on the strength of an ancient preview than gamers do, no doubt because of his proximity to the subject - but he should take less stock in overgrown Interweb detritus. Home and LittleBigPlanet provide a powerful counterpoint: it only takes a single inspired maneuver to uproot years of sin and misery. We are gamers, after all. When you succeed, we succeed also.

Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Some people are way too sensitive to the "console wars". Gamers just want good games and they could give a shit where these games are coming from in the end. And like PA said, all one needs to look at is PS Home and LBP to see a very recent example of this.

[Denis Dyack]

boy these questions need to be answered.. l

This is last time for this - it is seeming very circular to me but I will try one last time:

Part of the argument from EGM's side was "we were reviewing what was shown, if it wasn't ready why did you show it?". In software, especially games, it often suddently becomes imperative to show something to someone so I think asking a developer this question makes no sense at all. A more appropriate question that I'd like to ask you know is this: You are an experienced developer with several games under your belt so you know this thing happens. Different teams handle this problem different ways (tagging last good working code, working new tech in on private branches, etc) but they usually keep something working relatively well ready to go at any moment. I'm sure SK's development methodology is good so I figure something pretty cataclysmic happened on your side that caused you to go with something that was dramatically worse than what you would have liked to have shown. If people know this, all the questions about "why did you show it if it wasn't ready" will end.

It was an entrenched industry practice. Why did E3 live so when everyone, press, publishers and developers hated it? We were put in circumstances that were very unfavorable to us. Some situations and calls were out of our control. It was a mistake to show it. I really don't know what else to add here. We did and we cannot take it back.

2. Another question asked in the interview was "Why did you let people play it? Why not a rolling video?". From the way you talked about the dynamic auto camera and the control scheme you wanted people to experience it, so you threw out some caveats about the recently added tech and thought they'd ignore the issues and imagine the final product. In theory this is a good idea, however, as I said before I think most people do not understand the game development process and only know if they like a game or not and whether a game is pretty or not. Personally, I think that when one previews a game they are actually using all the criteria they use for a review with the added disclaimer that it is just a preview. Two related questions. Would it have been possible for you to do a more limited build with less technical issues(to allow the user to get a feel for gameplay) along with a rolling video? Also, if you previewed the E3 Too Human build in 75 words or less what would you have said?

Letting people play something is a way to get most honest impression. Unfortunately we did not anticipate the shift in the climate enough (more critical - which i think is a good trend long term). Most games that were playable rated lower then those that were not playable. Honesty was something that had little value at E3. It was all about the "show". I am not saying anyone actively being dishonest but there were just different priorities.

3. You mentioned that game previews are not good for the industry. I agree with you on this point however I'm curious about one thing. You allowed a dude to come to your offices and do a preview and seemed happy with that preview yet when the E3 preview (of a build that you admit had issues) came out and negated the positive preview you seemed to have problems. I'd like to know if your game preview opinion was formed before E3 or after it?

When Command and Conquer (the first one) won game of the show at E3. It showed a pre-rendered FMA that looked great but showed nothing of the game. It was a very very long time ago - still laugh about it with some old Westwood friends.

And to be clear on my point, game previews of unfinished games is what I am referring to. I feel the process previewing a final product is fine. Do not think I want to show anything until it done. Do you think I like talking about things before they are finished when there is a chance things will change. I don't. I will be showing some press Too Human next week. It is not done and I am not comfortable with this showing but I feel there is no choice for many reasons.

Our industry is in transition and I feel we were caught in a perfect storm at E3. I am saying things that many people do not want to hear. Some of these things might not be good for Too Human or Silicon Knights in the short term but I think it is right thing to do in the long term.

Hope this helps,
Denis

[PleoMax]

I thought I would link this as it is really well said. Why Denis Dyack is Right (And Why Shane Bettenhausen Isn’t Wrong) - Too Human.net Enjoy!

Wait a minute Dyack. I'm pretty far into that article, and honestly, altough i believe we should borrow some of the philosophy that is used in creating movies, let's not go overboard here.

See the reason why certain shit works for movies, is because movies are short run fun. You pay the ticket, you see it, and maybe you buy the dvd and see it again. Games are a different beast altogether, at least these kind of games where the goal is to immerse a player in a world, in a story, and have gameplay that will allow the player to have fun for a very large ammount of time, and even experience it with other gamers.

Games and Movies are different, altought they share alot.The gaming comunity is very different of the movie comunity, so they should be treated differently. Previews are not wrong, by any means, the E3 showfloor IS wrong. Inviting the press to a behind doors presentation, or to a presentation on your studio, or even a live demo in a press conference are not, again by any stretch of imagination, wrong.

Announcing a game and only show it when its done, its rediculous...and trying to downplay the importance that the gaming comunity and gaming press should have is wrong too. Specially when it comes to the press, because yes, they are our connection to the world of games in development, they are enterteinment in itself, they are access to information.

See, in a movie, to create hype what do you need? Big name director, AAA cast, and you are set....you are already generating hype, then the premise of the movie, then get a big ****ing marketing campaign, and at the very last minute let the people check the 150 word reviews of movies.

It's totally different, it's obvious that in a non interactive medium, it makes sense that the final consumer has little input and little knowledge of whats going on during the 2 to 3 year lifespan of development.

But here's what, you don't have big name actors, big name directors in videogames. Hype for videogames is created by the Press wich then passes to the gamers. In an interactive medium, specially in a interactive medium where there is competition big time, the PRess can not, and i mean CAN NOT be downplayed or levelled down to just reporting PR releases and making reviews.

This market, is very much its own beast, it borrows from sports - where comes the competition between the big 3, wich then creates the fans, and makes the role of the press more important, because gamers want to know what's going on all the time, like sports fans -, borrows from movies - where i believe we could borrow more, specially the funding model -, and has it's own touch, that is the gaming comunity.

Showing a game early is right, making preview builds is right, what isn't right is to have this fixed date, like E3, where you have to show the game, doesn't matter if you are ready for it or not. That's not good for development of the game, midway in the development having to create a build to be shown in a non controlled environment like E3 showfloor is wrong. And attributting scores to previews is waay wrong, and hammering a down a preview build with hyperbolic expressions is wrong too. Previews can't be like that. Outside the preview, in podcasts or in foruns, or in shows like the 1upshow and shit, there you can add to the preview, you can say more, because there you trully are speaking to the harcore community, to the hardcore gamer that is able to understand that there's problems, and even major problems, but there we are able to take into account the Developer pedigree, the situation in wich the game was shown, we are able to take into account the response of the Developer to the whole situation and hear from him reasons.
But to the casual gamer? You cannot do that, you cannot score a preview build "terrible" and you cannot pass the sensation that this game is going to be a piece of shit.

Holy shit. I wrote alot, anyway, Dyack, this ain't either 8 or 80, this ain't the movie industry, but to EGM, you have to take into consideration to who you are talking to, and how that might impact wrongly, a game development.

So i don't agree with Dyack and i don't agree with most people here and EGM, there's a place in-between the ones that each side is defending, and it's that place where this industry, in time, will reach. And when that happens, this industry will be considered the most spectacular entertainment industry in world, ever.

[Mustaphadamus]

Penny Arcade listened to the podcast:

awesome
i think that drives the point home well

[Unison]

Way to dodge ddk's questions, Denis.

I don't get this at all. If, as you said on the podcast, only Penny Arcade & EGM shit all over your game, why are you obsessed with effect of 2 bad previews, if there are zillions of great ones?

[Mustaphadamus]

Wait a minute Dyack. I'm pretty far into that article, and honestly, altough i believe we should borrow some of the philosophy that is used in creating movies, let's not go overboard here. See the reason why it certain shit works for movies, is because movies are short run fun. You pay the ticket, you see it, and maybe you buy the dvd and see it again. Games are a different beast altogether, at least these kind of games where the goal is to immerse a player in a world, in a story, and have gameplay that will allow the player to have fun for a very large ammount of time, and even experience it with other gamers. Games and Movies are different, altought they share alot.The gaming comunity is very different of the movie comunity, so they should be treated differently. Previews are not wrong, by any means, the E3 showfloor IS wrong. Inviting the press to a behind doors presentation, or to a presentation on your studio, or even a live demo in a press conference are not, again by any stretch of imagination, wrong. Announcing a game and only show it when its done, its rediculous...and trying to downplay the importance that the gaming comunity and gaming press should have is wrong too. Specially when it comes to the press, because yes, they are our connection to the world of games in development, they are enterteinment in itself, they are access to information. See, in a movie, to create hype what do you need? Big name director, AAA cast, and you are set....you are already generating hype, then the premise of the movie, then get a big ****ing marketing campaign, and at the very last minute let the people check the 150 word reviews of movies. It's totally different, it's obvious that in a non interactive medium, it makes sense that the final consumer has little input and little knowledge of whats going on during the 2 to 3 year lifespan of development. but here's what, you don't have big name actors, big name directors in videogames. Hype for videogames is created by the Press wich then passes to the gamers. In an interactive medium, specially in a interactive medium where there is competition big time, the PRess can not, and i mean CAN NOT be downplayed or levelled down to just reporting PR releases and making reviews. This market, is very much its own beast, it borrows from sports - where comes the competition between the big 3, wich then creates the fans, and makes the role of the press more important, because gamers want to know what's going on all the time, like sports fans -, borrows from movies - where i believe we could borrow more, specially the funding model -, and has it's own touch, that is the gaming comunity. Showing a game early is right, making preview builds is right, what isn't right is to have this fixed date, like E3, where you have to show the game, doesn't matter if you are ready for it or not. That's not good for development of the game, midway in the devlopment having to create a build to be shown in a non controlled environment like E3 showfloor is wrong. And attributting scores to previews is waay wrong, and hammering a down a preview build with hyperbolic expressions is wrong too. Previews can't be like that. Outside the preview, in podcasts or in foruns, or in shows like the 1upshow and shit, there you can add to the preview, you can say more, because there you trully are speaking to the harcore community, to the hardcore gamer that is able to understand that there's problems, and even major problems, but there we are able to take into account the Developer pedigree, the situation in wich the game was shown, we are able to take into account the response of the Developer to the whole situation and hear from him reasons. But to the casual gamer? You cannot do that, you cannot score a preview build "terrible" and you cannot pass the sensation that this game is going to be a piece of shit. Holy shit. I wrote alot, anyway, Dyack, this ain't either 8 or 80, this ain't the movie industry, but to EGM, you have to take into consideration to who you are talking to, and how that might impact wrongly, a game development. So i don't agree with Dyack and i don't agree with most people here and EGM, there's a place in-between the ones that each side is defending, and it's that place where this industry, in time, will reach. And when that happens, this industry will be considered the most spectacular enterteinment industry in world, ever.

what video game company do you work for?

[3rdman]

So when should we expect to see real footage of Too Human? I really enjoy seeing the dev process as I like seeing a project come together...I guess its a side effect of working in TV production for the last decade.

...and herein might be part of the problem. I'm very much accustomed to seeing works in progress...I would assume that journalists in the gaming media are used to it as well but I'd be very curious to know how many have actually gone through that experience. In any case, I do agree that this has been blown into a bigger deal than it should've.

[Denis Dyack]

Way to dodge ddk's questions, Denis. I don't get this at all. If, as you said on the podcast, only Penny Arcade & EGM shit all over your game, why are you obsessed with effect of 2 bad previews, if there are zillions of great ones?

I think the bold sums it up. I really did try - sorry it was not clear.

[AltogetherAndrews]

You know what I would like to see from Too Human? Something wild and brutal. This is supposedly Norse mythology we are dealing with here, so then why is everything so damned shiny, controlled and clean?

[Hyoushi]

I think the bold sums it up.

[Azih]

I think the bold sums it up. I really did try - sorry it was not clear.

We're not 'getting it' because you're sticking resolutely to one message while completely not acknowledging the 'You're going to be sorry Mark' kind of statements you made on the podcast which were COMPLETELY uncalled for, completely WRONG, and should frankly be withdrawn. You will continue to be called out for those very weird comments until you put the issue to rest.

Secondly you're also not addressing the argument that a good preview at a later date overrules an earlier bad preview in everyone's mind and that a good demo or review score trumps them all. That's the way the ENTIRE INDUSTRY operates and you're not recognizing that in your rantings about the E3 reaction.

[GitarooMan]

Secondly you're also not addressing the argument that a good preview at a later date overrules an earlier bad preview in everyone's mind and that a good demo or review score trumps them all. That's the way the ENTIRE INDUSTRY operates and you're not recognizing that in your rantings about the E3 reaction.

Don't you think thought that something like Viva Pinata was hurt somewhat sales wise by the consistant slamming the game took most of the year before release. Most everyone came around very late but I really don't think the entirety of the negative previews (and subsequent lack of hype and excitement) was ever fully trumped.

It could be that Viva sort of consistent sales since a very disappointing launch month are a sign that people slowly came around but I would say the negative preview press on unfinished builds did hurt what ended up as a solid game.

[JB1981]

Don't you think thought that something like Viva Pinata was hurt somewhat sales wise by the consistant slamming the game took most of the year before release. Most everyone came around very late but I really don't think the entirety of the negative previews (and subsequent lack of hype and excitement) was ever fully trumped. It could be that Viva sort of consistent sales since a very disappointing launch month are a sign that people slowly came around but I would say the negative preview press on unfinished builds did hurt what ended up as a solid game.

Negative press? Weren't people just pissed that Rare, of all things, decided to make a game about Pinatas?

[DreamMachine]

Negative press? Weren't people just pissed that Rare, of all things, decided to make a game about Pinatas?

No.. there were constant previews telling people of how bad the game ran. and how it wasn't fun etc etc.

[Kabuki Waq]

Don't you think thought that something like Viva Pinata was hurt somewhat sales wise by the consistant slamming the game took most of the year before release. Most everyone came around very late but I really don't think the entirety of the negative previews (and subsequent lack of hype and excitement) was ever fully trumped. It could be that Viva sort of consistent sales since a very disappointing launch month are a sign that people slowly came around but I would say the negative preview press on unfinished builds did hurt what ended up as a solid game.

No it Viva Pinata was hurt because it was marketed towards kids while being too complex for them. The Majority of the 360 audience just wasnt intersted in that type of game.

[nelsonroyale]

No it Viva Pinata was hurt because it was marketed towards kids while being too complex for them. The Majority of the 360 audience just wasnt intersted in that type of game.

I would compare this games reaction at e3 more to Untold legend than Viva Pinata. Though obviously this is just concerning that demo.

peace

[TDG]

Dyack has a few points that I agree with, but from there it seems like he's trying to cover up the fact that they showed a bad demo.

First of all, when Dyack says that the media often gives Nintendo the benefit of the doubt. He's making gross generalizations and sounds like a whining, flamboyant message board poster. It is true that with established franchises in good hands they tend to give the games the benefit of the doubt, such as Zelda and Mario. But when Chibi-robo and Battalion Wars look bad, they usually don't say "Well, it's Nintendo. I'm sure it'll be good."

Secondly, it's silly that he suggested that Mark's attitude towards the game was influenced by what people were saying on message boards. I'd hope he could give Mark enough credit to think he'd be able form his opinions on his own.

Also, there is no way in hell Dyack would be so upset if his game had got Awesome or even Good. He wouldn't be claiming it will change the industry, and he wouldn't be asking EGM not to judge the game yet. Do you think if EGM gave the game Awesome he'd be upset that they had judged the game based on a E3 build? No.

Finally, Bryan Intihar is one of my favorites at EGM (he's a Ohio State fan,) and it bothered me that he basically sat there and allowed Dyack to basically call his job phony and say it should stop. I wish Bryan had defended himself against Dyack's silly claims.

The EGM feature makes it quite clear that this is a preview based on the build they played. The build at E3 wasn't good and shouldn't have been shown. He need to stop blaming Mark MacDonald for his own problems.