• 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.

Kotaku: What Went Wrong with Silicon Knights' X-Men Destiny? Also Eternal Darkness 2

I want to learn more about how their Sega game failed now.

I can see how a company as rich as Activision kind of ignored the issues at SK for so long. I would imagine a company as money restricted or 'safe' as modern Sega not taking half as much bullshit. Still, I wonder how far they got.
 

Empty

Member
interesting piece. respect to mcmillen and kotaku.

that said with those sources i want an extended cut. there's more to mine here. why did the ritualist get cancelled, what happened with the ed2 pitches, how was the dyack neogaf stuff received in the studio. honestly i'd read pages more of dyack anecdotes, he's a fascinating character.
 
Unfortunately the five employees are:


Dennis dyack,
Dennis dyack's PA
Dennis dyack's back scratcher
Dennis dyack's life coach
And the tea boy

Nah, we ain't ever getting a game from them again, lol
He did fire his wife.

Granted, there's no need for a head of Human Resources when there's only three other people working there.
 
I mean, this sounds worse than most, but... in my experience, every single project goes like this to some extent.

The crediting they eventually used is pretty standard, I don't really think it's a problem though. People are too uptight over credits to start with.

But the rest of the stuff... basically sounds like the studio existed purely to extort publishers. People talk a lot about predatory publishers but here we have a predatory developer. Beware of the impending kickstarter.
 

FatCat

Member
I'm not sure I'd want a new ED now.
Maybe one day the studio will return to a former glory, atm it is fighting for survival, actually I'm surprised they are still around.
 

nmanma

Member
Nice investigative work and a very interesting read. It also reminded me to get Eternal Darkness. I was always curious about it but it was too scary for me back then

"This is the reason for the extremely high quality games that SK built a reputation on," says one source. "Nintendo was going to put their name on the game, so it had to be 'Nintendo quality.'"

I always thought this was a myth, woah
 

Ushojax

Should probably not trust the 7-11 security cameras quite so much
They were making an Eternal Darkness 2 demo to be shopped to publishers? I thought Nintendo owned the property.

Still...imagine if they had made it and it was good...

x3bgqq.gif
 
They were making an Eternal Darkness 2 demo to be shopped to publishers? I thought Nintendo owned the property.

Still...imagine if they had made it and it was good...

x3bgqq.gif

It took them a year and a they apparently barely had a single church interior level. There was no hope.
 
I always thought this was a myth, woah

It seems to be a question of who you ask. A lot of developers that leave Nintendo are happy they finally do not need to answer to them. Then that freedom leads to excess and mismanagement because they're so used to that worrying-and-relieving hand on the shoulder and don't know how to operate without it.

Rare might have worked out better early on when the talent was still there if Microsoft exerted a bit more pressure and guidance on them instead of simply letting them go and saying "Alright, make Nintendo games, but for us."
 
"They were working on an Eternal Darkness 2 demo that they could take to publishers."

So ED is not a Nintendo IP?

"The farthest they got with it when I left SK was, literally, one two-level church interior, it was really bad, as I recall. It took the side-team a long time to even get that far, a lot of key people responsible for the original Eternal Darkness are long gone."

And this is why I kept saying, I want ED2, but I don't want F5 working on it, they are garbage nowadays, just like Rare. If they hold the rights to the franchise, I'm ready to move on. If Nintendo owns the IP, give it to Retro, aren't they supposed to bring old games to new life? (Metroid, Donkey Kong)

Factor 5? Hah. I wish they were still around :/
 

FyreWulff

Member
I always thought this was a myth, woah

Nintendo's oversight is well known. Ever read the story of how they basically rebooted Retro? People were running porn sites out of Retro's offices before Nintendo stepped in and said "alright, we're fixing your shit."
 
So I was serving a table at my old job about a year ago and I noticed the guy was talking about video games with his friends, so I jumped in the conversation. Turns out the guy had previously worked at SK and was now bumming around Vancouver looking for job. The conversation eventually ended up at "so what was it like working for Dyack?" to which he replied "Fuck that guy". He went on for a few minutes talking about how he has the biggest ego in the industry before I had to go do my job and the conversation changed. Thought that was funny at time. Now, not so much.
 

Ravidrath

Member
The crediting they eventually used is pretty standard, I don't really think it's a problem though. People are too uptight over credits to start with.

But the rest of the stuff... basically sounds like the studio existed purely to extort publishers. People talk a lot about predatory publishers but here we have a predatory developer. Beware of the impending kickstarter.

First, I'm not at all supportive of credit fuckery - credits are important to workers. Because of behavior like this in Hollywood, there are now credit guidelines written into union contracts. It's not just about having the personal satisfaction of getting your name in a shipped product, it's about there being an accurate record of who actually worked on what.

I think if you worked on the game for three months or more, you should get a full credit. Bringing work politics, hurt feelings, etc. into it is extremely unprofessional and petty, and this almost always originates from the upper levels of the company. Basically, the threat of losing a credit is just another way for bad managers to pressure and control their employees instead of actually managing them effectively.


And, again... it sounds like SK was worse with this than most. But pretty much all studios fund other projects with money from their current project. Many studios invent reasons to artificially extend deadlines to bridge them to their next contract, too. And the marketplace almost requires developers to low-ball on the initial contract just to sign something, with extensions as problems or unforeseen costs or difficulties arise.

It's a rough and competitive industry and these sorts of contractual perversions are the natural result of that. I'm not saying it's right or good, but it's common because 1) most studios aren't value-added studios, meaning that quality-driven studios are competing against them 2) most publishers can't actually perceive, let alone make themselves care about, quality, and 3) they naturally want to get the games done as cheaply as possible.


Also, BTW, friends of mine that know Denis say he's got a serious reality-distortion field going. It's basically the way he's been able to keep at it as long as he has, but the last few years of SK's actual reality have made people wise to it. And I think Denis' recent antics just show that he bought into his own bullshit years ago.
 

Ridley327

Member
Because this is confusing people, Silicon Knights does not own the Eternal Darkness IP and they never have; it has always been owned by Nintendo.

What the article suggests is that if Nintendo shot the prototype down, that they would then shop it around to third-party publishers and release it as a spiritual successor.
 

Ravidrath

Member
Because this is confusing people, Silicon Knights does not own the Eternal Darkness IP and they never have; it has always been owned by Nintendo.

What the article suggests is that if Nintendo shot the prototype down, that they would then shop it around to third-party publishers and release it as a spiritual successor.

My impression was that The Ritualyst was supposed to be the spiritual successor. But since Eternal Darkness is their most critically-accplaimed game, it's likely that's how they pitch most everything.
 
And this is why I kept saying, I want ED2, but I don't want F5 working on it, they are garbage nowadays, just like Rare.

The reason nobody agreed with you is none of us had any clue why the fuck Factor 5 would be working on Eternal Darkness 2 anyway. It makes no sense.


Anyway, Nintendo will either hand the IP to Retro or just let it die. I'm guessing the latter, but who knows?
 
The crediting they eventually used is pretty standard, I don't really think it's a problem though. People are too uptight over credits to start with.
It's only standard because we've seen worse happen before (like what was described as originally happening). I've heard of examples where the company actually spent time/money to remove a name from a rendered end credit, just because they left the company ~two weeks before the game shipped.
 

Ridley327

Member
The reason nobody agreed with you is none of us had any clue why the fuck Factor 5 would be working on Eternal Darkness 2 anyway. It makes no sense.


Anyway, Nintendo will either hand the IP to Retro or just let it die. I'm guessing the latter, but who knows?

Truth be told, this was always a situation where SK needed ED2 more than Nintendo would ever need one. If the prototype was worthwhile, I'm sure that Nintendo would have at least expressed some desire to make it go forward in some capacity, but Nintendo is not losing anything over not accepting SK's pitch.
 

Man God

Non-Canon Member
The Nintendo curse is strong and very real, though sometimes for different reasons.

One developer had their support for exclusive sports games on their platform.

Others got in over their head like SK. It's so amusing that their primary publicly stated reason for leaving Nintendo's wing was that they wanted to play with the big tech machines when they ended up failing miserably with getting around them.

Factor 5 might have been the one actual voodoo curse. Sure they got sort of fucked releasing a fairly bad launch window title with an unfortunate control scheme (especially when they are best known for their launch window mastery on the GCN) but all the rest of the shit that happened to them was true voodoo curse territory.
 

Ravidrath

Member
Truth be told, this was always a situation where SK needed ED2 more than Nintendo would ever need one. If the prototype was worthwhile, I'm sure that Nintendo would have at least expressed some desire to make it go forward in some capacity, but Nintendo is not losing anything over not accepting SK's pitch.

Eternal Darkness didn't sell well, so there's no reason for them to want a sequel, period.

Also, keep in mind that Eternal Darkness was also one of Dyack's patented multi-generational development cycles. I remember seeing at at E3 on the N64 years before it actually came out.

Publishers don't really willingly delay games like that, and it makes sense that if they were to do a sequel that they'd want a developer with a better track record when it comes to scoping, scheduling and budgeting properly.
 
Truth be told, this was always a situation where SK needed ED2 more than Nintendo would ever need one. If the prototype was worthwhile, I'm sure that Nintendo would have at least expressed some desire to make it go forward in some capacity, but Nintendo is not losing anything over not accepting SK's pitch.

Honestly I wasn't even thinking Nintendo would entertain an audience with Silicon Knights. That would have been a nightmare. I don't think Nintendo really felt too burned when they stopped working together.

What I was saying is if for some reason they wanted to continue the IP, they have a high-quality team in Retro they can hand it to. Or they could let it die, which is what I'm 95% sure they will do.

It's not like they haven't continued games with lackluster sales before, though.
 

v1oz

Member
It seems to be a question of who you ask. A lot of developers that leave Nintendo are happy they finally do not need to answer to them. Then that freedom leads to excess and mismanagement because they're so used to that worrying-and-relieving hand on the shoulder and don't know how to operate without it.

Rare might have worked out better early on when the talent was still there if Microsoft exerted a bit more pressure and guidance on them instead of simply letting them go and saying "Alright, make Nintendo games, but for us."
Well except that's not what happened at Rare. Microsoft literally just came in and changed the culture over night and cancelled several projects. Forcing them into a rigid corporate culture with large teams more interested in ticking feature lists and meeting deadlines over game quality & creativity. Then they had the whole entire studio working on software tools and Kinect games.

The reason Rare games worked so well prior to Microsoft is that they had a loose structure with smaller more manageable teams of 5 to 10 individuals per game. They also didn't release a game until it was fully cooked. And of course the style of games Rare make with cute characters like Banjo were a better fit for Nintendo platforms.
 
Honestly I wasn't even thinking Nintendo would entertain an audience with Silicon Knights. That would have been a nightmare. I don't think Nintendo really felt too burned when they stopped working together.

What I was saying is if for some reason they wanted to continue the IP, they have a high-quality team in Retro they can hand it to. Or they could let it die, which is what I'm 95% sure they will do.

It's not like they haven't continued games with lackluster sales before, though.

Oh I'm sure Nintendo would at least speak to them, they do still own a (small?) stake in the company
 

Ridley327

Member
Oh I'm sure Nintendo would at least speak to them, they do still own a (small?) stake in the company

I think it's less than 10% or something, but hey, it's still a stake, and I think that they at least still thought there was a chance to get them back into their fold if they've held onto it for all these years.
 

FyreWulff

Member
It's only standard because we've seen worse happen before (like what was described as originally happening). I've heard of examples where the company actually spent time/money to remove a name from a rendered end credit, just because they left the company ~two weeks before the game shipped.

Yeah, the credits thing is an industry wide problem. I've seen quite a few games where a prominent person involved was removed completely or were moved to the "Special Thanks" without crediting what they actually did if they left before the game shipped.
 

tenchir

Member
Assuming that SK found a publisher for ED2 and changed it's name so Nintendo won't sue them, how will they get around Nintendo's patent on sanity effects in ED?
 

Ridley327

Member
Assuming that SK found a publisher for ED2 and changed it's name so Nintendo won't sue them, how will they get around Nintendo's patent on sanity effects in ED?

By not having them, I'd assume.

I think that Nintendo's patent covers those as an actual gameplay mechanic, as well as some of the more specific effects like the memory card deletion, so it's not like they couldn't do sanity effects per se.
 

theJwac

Member
As a huge fan of Eternal Darkness, this broke my heart to read. I went in hoping to gleam some information that might point to an eventual release of a sequel and found out that the company that made that game essentially hasn't existed in ten years.

Fascinating stuff though.
 
First, I'm not at all supportive of credit fuckery - credits are important to workers. Because of behavior like this in Hollywood, there are now credit guidelines written into union contracts. It's not just about having the personal satisfaction of getting your name in a shipped product, it's about there being an accurate record of who actually worked on what.

I disagree, unlike Hollywood credits in the game industry are not tied to payments. They serve no purpose but vanity. Documented inaccuracy across the industry and no central, accurate database a-la imdb makes them rather pointless for recording or verifying who worked on what... and even if you did you have no idea if they were a credit to the team or not. That's more important in hiring than if someone was there at the end or not.

It's yet another area where games are bit by being a combination of software and art. Artists tends to have credits, software doesn't. Go to Amazon and try to find the credits. It will be tough even though there is a massive, ever-changing contingent of engineers working on it daily.

So that's my perspective. Credits are nice but don't really mean anything in the long run. Special thanks is code in the industry for "left before the project was over" or "laid off" and I think that's perfectly fair. Huge amounts of the code I've written at previous jobs will be used in their current and future products but I will get no credit for them and I expect none. It may sting more for artists but I think it shouldn't be expected to credit anyone for games. There's not a direct comparison to movies because all games are built on 10+ year old bases of code and there's no way to accurately credit off that.
 

FyreWulff

Member
What? Links?

IGN and Nsider Retro Retrospective

http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/12/18/a-retrospective-the-story-of-retro-studios?page=1

page 8

"And there were indeed issues with the higher-ups, including people who used company computer hardware to run porn websites out of their home and others who embezzled hundreds of thousands from the company and fled the country. It's no wonder that Nintendo was able to purchase Retro for the ridiculous price of one million - I'm amazed they wanted it at all. I guess at that point they were in so far they needed to get something out of it."
 

GraveRobberX

Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
Evi"Big Boss"Lore said:
As Confucius once said, “the photoshop cat juggles a ball of yarn, and unravels it all over his face.” You are Baldur, Denis. You’re the poorly animated bald Norse technogod, the Übermensch with a thousand pointless book references misunderstood by the dirty proles who aren’t worthy enough to judge you.

Your favorite Nietzsche quote, "he who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster," is one you’ve fallen victim to yourself, if your opinion of this site is to be taken to heart. In these pitiable confrontations with us you've proven to be the monster of gaming development, a sore on the industry and a squanderer of your subordinates' time and effort. Through all this, through this self-inflicted PR nightmare, you’ve conquered vast new frontiers of unwarranted hyperbole and desperate pseudo-intellectual grasping. Buy an unaccredited doctorate, change your given name to Derek, and take up the reins; Derek Smart would eagerly defer to the greatness of Dr. Dyack.

What is an appropriate action to take in response to the man who continues to post here? I won't be tolerating a second retconned "social experiment," a second call for NeoGAF's closing, or a second "worst forum" insult. You decided to ignore the option for real terms for your pointless tag bet, so with the majority of reviews condemning your magnum opus to mediocrity I'll claim a suitable prize by telling you to get the hell off NeoGAF.


HPZwY.gif
 

Makonero

Member
How much do you wanna bet that after Silicon Knights went belly-up, Nintendo turned to Retro and said, "here ya go!" and gave them Eternal Darkness? After all, they are working on a game that "everyone wants [them] to." Since they were created with the express purpose of creating more mature games for Nintendo... well, just connect the dots. I wonder if the timing matches up...
 

BeauRoger

Unconfirmed Member
SK always seemed like a fluke company to me anyway. Eternal darkness was good, but Twin snakes was simply a remake, not original. Besides that they have nothing noteworthy to show.
 

Ravidrath

Member
I disagree, unlike Hollywood credits in the game industry are not tied to payments. They serve no purpose but vanity.

Just because there is no IMDB doesn't mean that credits can't be a useful and accurate record of a game's development and employee positions on them. And it's not like IMDB also tells you if people are any good or not - that's what tests and word-of-mouth are for.

For example, at a previous studio, there's this one intern I worked with who I've been asked about multiple times now by friends at companies he's applied to. Each time he claims to have been something different and better than an intern there, from junior designer all the way to lead designer.

He was cut out of the credits (as was I) because the project changed studios mid-development, and so there is no record of what he actually did. And, unlike most people, this kid is constantly trying to take advantage of that.

And if, for the sake of argument, credits are mostly for vanity, isn't denying people credits is just another form of vanity? That being the vanity of whoever the petty manager in charge of the credits is. Why do you favor their vanity over that of the rest of the team's?

Giving credits doesn't cost anything, so there's no reason not to do it. And, in reality, fights and meetings about who gets to be in the credits creates not only wastes time, but also tends to anger and demoralize employees.
 

Fabrik

Banned
Another source recounts an anecdote from a different theater review. "The game was an unplayable disaster [in the review], but he got fixated on a static mesh of a non-interactive grey truck in the background. He gave the company a 20 minute lecture on the fact that he'd never buy a grey truck; he wanted it painted red." Accordingly, some SK employees sniggered behind their backs at Dyack: "We jokingly coined the phrase ‘paint the truck!' for other ridiculous, off-the-hip ‘executive orders' that sprang forth from Denis' mouth," says the same source. "Incidentally, I played the game after release... the truck is still grey."

George Lucas syndrome.
 

charsace

Member
Remember when Factor 5 and Silicon Knights were both devs to watch? One is dead and the other one is on life support. Crazy to think about.
 

Alebrije

Member

“I am most often asked if we have sequels in mind for Eternal Darkness. The answer is absolutely yes.”


- Denis Dyack, Silicon Knights Blog, July 06, 2006

Dyack-thumb-250x250-thumb-250x250.jpg
 
Top Bottom