-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Denis Dyack Addresses Kotaku Allegations [Silicon Knights]
- Thread starter Shiggy
- Start date
Yes, it's a little less than a year old and SoTE is their first project.
spindoctor
Member
It's proof that the information in that article was coming from inside Silicon Knights. It's proof that the writer didn't just make shit up. He said that the information was corroborated by 8 anonymous sources. Now if you want to believe that he made all that up, but just left this particular bit of truth in the article (without ever knowing that it would be independently verified a year later), you're free to do so. Personally I'm inclined to believe that he was in fact in contact with SK employees and that he didn't write a piece of fiction. I can understand why some editors refused to run the story and others did... that's just how it is with anonymous sources and whistleblower stories. I doubt Kotaku saw the article and thought "yay more hits let's publish" without at least looking into it.
Uncle Rupee
Banned
The thing is, even if everything in the Kotaku article was false, these people have a reputation for taking forever and a day to make their games.
Too Human started off as a PS1 project... Eternal Darkness was planned as an N64 game...
How many resources were wasted during the evolution of these projects? The fact they even materialized at all is kind of amazing.
Given that, it's somewhat difficult to believe they can pull off a game of this scope with such a small team and limited funds without the backing of a major publisher.
Props to Denis for actually responding though, I felt he did a good job of deflecting many of the accusations against him. However, there are still certain things that weren't addressed, like his wife being head of HR and stuff.
Too Human started off as a PS1 project... Eternal Darkness was planned as an N64 game...
How many resources were wasted during the evolution of these projects? The fact they even materialized at all is kind of amazing.
Given that, it's somewhat difficult to believe they can pull off a game of this scope with such a small team and limited funds without the backing of a major publisher.
Props to Denis for actually responding though, I felt he did a good job of deflecting many of the accusations against him. However, there are still certain things that weren't addressed, like his wife being head of HR and stuff.
I think you have compressed the possibility space. Another possibility is that all eight were reporting what was office gossip at SK: that funds were being mishandled and Activision mislead. Employees can be mistaken about some things and right about others.
Confidence Man
Member
I'll never forgive them for turning Too Human from a cyberpunk MGS/RPG into a dumb action loot game starring a bald dude in space armor. NEVER.
anotherVegan
Member
Eternal Darkness 2 confirmed?
Its a hummed that they didn't go second party for Nintendo. I'm just glad they didn't get bought and ruined like Rare.
Its a hummed that they didn't go second party for Nintendo. I'm just glad they didn't get bought and ruined like Rare.
spindoctor
Member
I'm not sure why this isn't clear?
The article states that an insider said they had a church level in production. A year later, we see the described church level in their video. So the options are
a) the writer was indeed talking to someone inside SK who told him the truth
b) the writer magically knew what SK was upto without ever asking them
c) as an epic coincidence, the new/old company independently made the exact level that was described in a 'fake' article a year ago.
Have I missed anything? Occam's Razor?
See even if we go by your assumption, the fact still remains that this was information coming out of the company. It was a story written in good faith and not out of malice as a 'hit piece' that some people are calling it here.
As for employees being mistaken, that's certainly possible. But then, who's version of the truth is correct? Dyack's? He was asked to comment on the article and refused to do so (for what I feel is a very stupid reason). He has a history of lying and he could just as easily be doing so here. Either way I'm not sure how anyone can cast aspersions on the writer or website that published the story though.
So do we still hate the guy? I don't know what to think....arg.
Accuaraly yes I do. I felt his delivery was very robotic and only focuses around the article, rather then the general concerns people have which relate to the article but not exactly 100% the articles material.
Plus his whole "if we replied then he'd have a soruce" thing is odd, you mean that that shit was going down so if you replied with no practice you would of had a voice spike in relation to the questions? and be worried?
Accuaraly yes I do. I felt his delivery was very robotic and only focuses around the article, rather then the general concerns people have which relate to the article but not exactly 100% the articles material.
Plus his whole "if we replied then he'd have a soruce" thing is odd, you mean that that shit was going down so if you replied with no practice you would of had a voice spike in relation to the questions? and be worried?
digoutyoursoul
Member
Damn, a lot of people in the gaming community have a strong dislike for this man. I will look up the whole "GAF" incident
If I remember correctly, ED on N64 was 95% done but they were given the option to move it over to gamecube to take advantage of the bigger disk space and hardware.
It's amazing. Two out of the three stickied threads on GAF archive revolves around him.
Title of video: "Response to Kotaku Article."
Also, he talks about other questions outside of the article. There were definitely ways to ask him whatever questions you wanted before this video.
Okay, but you were responding to me. I never called it a hit piece or said it was written out of malice.
Well, his non-anonymous ex-employee who was in charge of managing labor on XMD and ED2 is now on record as claiming that the major allegation of the piece never happened. Dyack has also produced an email which suggests that the author of the Kotaku article only had heresay, rather than objective evidence (he did not have copies of emails, screenshots, etc). I don't think these two points mean that the article is necessarily wrong, but the seriousness of the allegations suggests a higher burden of proof.
Even if he was legitimately talking to someone who worked for SK, that is not an indication that everything in the story is true. How do we know that the source(s) didn't use this reporter as a mouthpiece to smear Dyack? This might not have been the source(s) intent at all, but when they can hide behind their anonymity, they can say anything they want and not be held accountable. And if McMillen wasn't ethical, and I'm not saying this is the case, he could just attribute anything that pops into his head to these anonymous sources. It's why proper journalism relies on multiple verified sources. What isn't clear to you?
Nah instead they made two bad games and launched a lawsuit against EPIC that backfired in their face. Two different ways to ruin your company.
digoutyoursoul
Member
I was unaware of him and what's gone on, I'm not going to make a judgement on the guy either way. I did play and enjoy Eternal Darkness, the Too Human demo didn't impress me enough to buy it and then I just never bothered to keep tabs on Silicon Knights.
I might rent X Men Destiny for a laugh to see how shit it is.
Rocket Punch
Member
He's sharing a lot of information and he sounds sincere. It looks like he's finally got his ego in check. I believe him.
spindoctor
Member
My bad. My thoughts kind of got jumbled up there.
Well, going on the record when you have nothing to lose is not some great achievement. Either way... every individual has to make a judgement call on what they believe is the truth. With people's future careers on the line, I doubt anyone is going to publicly come forward.
Sure, if you want to believe that one part of the story was true but the other part wasn't, it's up to you. Or several people colluded to fool a writer into smearing Dyack. Possible. Or hell, Dyack kicked the writer's dog and this was his revenge. I mean, everything is possible right?
As for sources, the writer does claim to have 8 of them. It seems you are less inclined to believe that because they chose to remain anonymous and don't have a smoking gun email/file like in the movies.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
The specific (and silly) reference to Silicon Knights splitting with Nintendo over the name of the Wii, etc. was taken from another thread and posted in the questions thread Precursor had opened, where anyone could post resulting questions fro the article.
But, really, the article did plenty to imply that Denis, and thus Silicon Knights, desired the split and resented Nintendo:
See? Denis believed that Nintendo was oppressive. A source said!
Night_Trekker
Member
The burden of proof is on Kotaku for making the claims they did. It's not up to Dyack to "disprove" what they said, it's up to them to prove their claims. And they didn't back them up with anything substantial, no proof. Just "8 ex-employees said this, but we won't say who they are."
Name them please
Night_Trekker
Member
So watch the video the thread is talking about and have your fears eased. ("Likely eased," anyway... no matter what he says, some people are just not going to give him a shot.)
Damning proof of what exactly?
I don't think anyone is questioning that the sources aren't from SK, rather how much of this is just overblown bitching from disgruntled ex-employees.
As I said before, I've heard horror stories from employees at a lot of well-respected developers. They could easily spin their stories to make their employers sound awful. I'm sure somebody I've worked with could make me sound awful. I could make some people sound awful.
When you work on a project that is failing at a place that is failing there is bound to be a lot of negative emotion. Most of these complaints are just typical video game workplace stuff amped up a little - "SK tries to trick publishers by promising massive worlds for a price they way too low to achieve those results..." Isn't that just an extremely negative way of saying "SK tries to make working with it look like a great value to publishers by positioning itself aggressively"?
Who here can't spin stories about their old boss to make them look bad?
Night_Trekker
Member
That they bought assets from SK and are working as closely as possible to the ED2 designs without breaking copyright.
I don't see the issue, personally. I want an ED spiritual sequel to be as close as legally possible to ED.
Do you live in a world in which journalists don't protect their sources? Or do you just have no understanding of what journalism actually is?
This story had eight sources. Verified by both the writer and editor.
LOL! Having legitimate, verified sources isn't something you only find in the movies. Any reputable news outfit likely has a policy that they will not publish a story without a source who will go on record. Yeah, it sucks for the journalist and it makes it harder to publish a story in a lot of cases, but it is 100% necessary, unless you like yellow journalism. Something that could just boil down to being an homage or even a coincidence does not verify the writer's story. It comes off like I'm trying to defend Dyack, and I'm not, I could't care less about the guy. I just wonder why you are so ready to believe whatever McMillen puts to paper? He's leveling some pretty major indictments that warrants a little more research than what you're applying.
But they are all off the record. At least the writer made an attempt to get a source willing to be quoted, but he should have shopped the information he had around and tried to find someone willing to go on record. Wired was right all the way, imo.
spindoctor
Member
Do you want them to publicly name 8 people, thereby breaking confidence and potentially threatening their careers and future in the industry just to satiate your curiosity?
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
One thing that many people seem to forget is that nobody disapproved the Kotaku's Article when it came out. Not even Dyack. And I think a article as career damaging as that would deserve and answer days after it got published.
Doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. The damage is done. Which, i suspect is what these individuals wanted to do. I don't see any other reason why they'd come out, other than to skuttle the game.
The thing is a lot of their claims being true means nothing.
Dyack once spent 20 minutes lecturing people about the color of a level asset. And? Maybe he was belaboring the point because the project suffered from a lack of attention to detail.
I'm pretty sure I've lectured someone in the past and on the inside they were rolling their eyes. If you spin that the right way you can make it sound very bad, when the truth might be that you were a bad employee.
Sometimes Dyack would come in and suggest a big change in direction that upset people. Does anyone in the video game industry not complain about this? I mean - that's video games. And not even just video games. Upper level managers often have a ton of shit to do that rank-and-file don't appreciate, then they catch up and see things have gone wrong. (At least in their estimation) That's like the classic video game developer complaint.
The piece is mostly stuff like this, along with a couple vague allegations that are almost impossible to disprove by their nature.
You could write a story like this on a huge number of developers.
It's funny how he got in trouble on Gaf and the media in part for rambling about anonymity and reciprocity, and then was attacked by anonymous cowards who for all we know were fired for wasting 3 months modeling a fire hydrant.
GeekyDad
Member
His video commentary makes me wonder why he hasn't sued. If what they said about him wasn't true and it truly is affecting his company in a negative way financially, I would think he would have a defamation suit. But he hasn't sued. Why?
The only thing I could think of is, it's possible there was some impropriety on his part that would have to come out in legal proceedings.
Something doesn't sit right about the whole thing.
The only thing I could think of is, it's possible there was some impropriety on his part that would have to come out in legal proceedings.
Something doesn't sit right about the whole thing.
You don't have to break a source's confidentiality, you take the info they have given you and find someone who is willing to confirm on the record.
It might be a 99% certainty that the story is true, but if the stereotype of "lololol Gaemz journalizm sucks!!1!!!1!" is ever going to end, they need to hold themselves to the same standards as the hard news outlets.
Usually when something like this comes out, you want to scream from the top of the mountain that it's not true. Unfortunately that's the wrong approach, especially when it's thin story with little proof. You can just wait until it passes. When it doesn't, and the story snowballs, then you can't remain quiet. The public will assume guilt. Then of course, official response means the story grows. So basically the accused in these sort of things always loses, even when the sources are anonymous.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
Or, like in this case. until there is a chance to revive the dream project.
Night_Trekker
Member
Well then, logically we have to believe what they allegedly said!
Again, Kotaku is making the claims, so the burden of proof is on then. Not on anyone else to "disprove" their claims. It's a good idea to have a reason to believe something (i.e. proof) before defending it or presenting it as substantial enough to require a counter-argument.
This is some weak-ass "journalism" on Kotaku's part, but really, why should we expect anything different from them? Not only is this "lol games journalism," but Kotaku has, lately, published a lot of "controversial" articles of dubious quality.
And...
Exactly. And it wouldn't even require the anonymous ex-developers be liars! They could have been disgruntled due to the XMD project disaster and internal stress at SK during development.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
Again, you are ignoring that silence (for better or worse) can also be a proof* and the fact that nobody called them until now.
*Methaporical speaking, obviously.
Night_Trekker
Member
Except that Dyack has provided another valid explanation for that silence: he didn't want to draw attention to or validate the article with an official response. How could we, from an outsider perspective, determine the difference between the two scenarios? How could we determine which is true? We couldn't. So why assume the worst?
And what is the worst, anyway? "Dyack waited until now because the KS project is tanking." That explanation doesn't imply or prove there's any truth to the article's claims, only that Precursor wants the project to succeed and they saw this continuing controversy to be a problem.
I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings here. Let me try to clear a few things up.
1) "Off the record" means that something cannot be used in a story. This was a story that directly quoted eight anonymous people. They were all on the record - they just asked to speak anonymously. There is a big difference.
2) For over a century now, anonymous sources have been an essential part of investigative journalism in every field. Without anonymous sources, there is no investigative journalism. Do you think people would ever risk their lives and careers to help expose crime and corruption and misdoings if they couldn't speak anonymously?
Here's a good example from the most distinguished newspaper in the world. For a story in 2010, the New York Times' David Carr interviewed a ton of current and former employees in order to paint the picture of how Sam Zell ran the Tribune into the ground. There was no documentation. There were no emails. Just Carr's anonymous sources. And these were far more serious allegations than anything in Kotaku's Silicon Knights story: we're talking sexual harassment, among other things. As a reporter for a paper with ridiculously high standards, Carr edited and reported until he knew he had the truth, and he corroborated the details accordingly.
Guess how the Tribune responded? Denial.
This is investigative journalism, ladies and gentlemen. This is exactly what people say they want more of in gaming. Every single day, on NeoGAF elsewhere. And now Kotaku is getting backlash because the subject of an unflattering investigative report is denying those unflattering accusations a few days after realizing that his crowdfunding campaign - a campaign that has been sketchy since the beginning - was failing miserably?
I don't know why Wired (or other outlets) turned down this story, but I do know that Stephen and Andrew edited it a great deal - and reported a lot more - during the months after the email in this thread, which was sent in January of 2012. Kotaku's story was published in October of 2012. This story has been in the works for a very long time, and it looked a lot different in January 2012 than it did when it was published, from what I've seen and heard.
Stephen will inevitably have more to say whenever he posts about this on Kotaku. But it's really, really disappointing to see how some of you have been reacting in this thread. Why would any gaming journalist want to do investigative work when the hardcore gaming crowd will immediately attack them (and - holy shit! - put the word "journalism" in scare-quotes) as soon as the subject of an unflattering report issues a denial? You don't need a journalism degree to understand this stuff.
When I skimmed it when it came out my reaction was "yep, sounds like the story of someone making a video game."
Some of the language implies something sinister, but the actual situations described are fairly normal. When you get past the dramatic blabbing about pink elephants (that guy sure sounded proud of himself for his awesome pink elephant analogies) and talk of maliciousness what's there in terms of facts is mostly just "video games."
They shifted resources onto an ED prototype? Well, if the writing was on the wall with XMD you can spin that as trying to bilk Activision (does Activision's contract specifically state that every employee has to work on XMD? Probably not) or you can see it as trying to save the company and the jobs of the employees.
When you are working on a project that is not going well it is extremely easy to blame those above you for things like resource allocation. It's easy to complain about things like how money is being spent when you aren't the one responsible for the budget and the financial solvency of the company.
Maybe he still posts here using an alt account
About that Jason...
Identified source.
Identified source.
Identified source.
Using company's own handbook as source.
Using company's own press release as source.
Public record of previous suit as source.
Identified source.
Lol? Jason stahp.
The article you claim was just anonymous sources used named sources, public records and the company's own literature. And not just in a tangential way to establish irrelevant factoids - the sources used are key to the piece. They paint a picture on their own, even without any anonymous sourcing, and corroborate what the anonymous sources claimed.
What in the fuck are you talking about?
By the way I only skimmed and only the first third of that article. I think I need to stop reading what you write or I'm going to get myself banned for being extremely nasty.