Support NeoGAF

[Kittonwy]

Alright, let me try and summarize those "12 years for you"


The "original" Too Human concept and game were started in 1994 (conceptualization could take any number of years depending on how things go), but actualy full-fledged development wouldn't occur until after Blood Omen 1 was released in 1996. Keep in mind, that during this time as well, they were developing Eternal Darkness for the N64 simultanously. Too Human for the PSX was just about completed in 2000, but it was then that they made the arrangement with Nintendo to be 2nd party, and thus, the PSX game had to be scrapped.

During their work with Nintendo while developing Eternal Darkness and then Twin Snakes, Too Human was barely touched, save for some promotional pre-rendered movies shown. And then, when they left Nintendo in April 2004 they had to shop around a bit for a publisher for their games, and eventually, MS gave them the ok (dunno exactly when that happened, but I assume sometime in 2004 soon after they left Nintendo).

Of course, after all these years, Dyack changed his vision for the game (yes, it does happen when you're a creative director and time goes by) and it became something very much different than originally thought up. This meant of course that none of the assets used for the original series could be re-used or even referenced. Of course, since we are two generations ahead of Too Human PSX anyway, there's no way any art assets, coding, or programming could be re-used as well. So everything would have to be built from the ground up from scratch. Also, because Norse mythology would be more heavily prevalent in this version, the team would have to study up on research on that and base their art and design around it, and believe me, that takes time.

Now here's the thing some of you are missing, unless you've developed an Unreal mod, and thats that you can create all the art assets, animations, scripting, etc. in a large amount of time, and by doing so think you've covered a lot of ground in development, but then, when you actually try to place them in the engine (especially one thats being heavily modded with the camera system), things go nuts and things break (or they become "FEATURES!"), and then that usually means going back and fixing stuff.

It's a painstaking process and I wish them well in completing it, unlike some here who are indeed clamoring for its cancellation.

EDIT: And as for being out in Q4 2006, I'm not sure if that was previously stated or not, but Denis at E3 was quite adamant about not giving out a date.

Who were "clamoring" for its cancellation?

So you're telling me they don't have any of the combat working in terms of combos or the enemies attacking properly? Not even for a single level?

What's the point of the E3 demo then? I mean from seeing other E3 demos, having a playable build means the player can actually get a little taste for how the final product is going to play like, what this is, is literally the bare minimum: you can run around, kill enemies with one hit, enemies don't attack you properly and the environment doesn't factor into the gameplay other than provide a surface for the characters to run around in. If this is the state the game was in, then it shouldn't have been shown at all, period.

 

[Ark-AMN]

Who were "clamoring" for its cancellation?

So you're telling me they don't have any of the combat working in terms of combos or the enemies attacking properly? Not even for a single level?

What's the point of the E3 demo then?[/IMG]

To get feedback. Feedback is very important, even if its all negative. As for why it was shown, I would have loved to be in the meetings were that decision was made, but I wasn't. So any speculation on my part, or others would be of little use, until we hear from either MS or Denis the reason.

 

[Kittonwy]

To get feedback. Feedback is very important, even if its all negative. As for why it was shown, I would have loved to be in the meetings were that decision was made, but I wasn't. So any speculation on my part, or others would be of little use, until we hear from either MS or Denis the reason.

Don't they get feedback from their own internal playtesting? That's what it's for, so you can get feedback before you push out a broken demo.

Because I'm sure if they were doing any kind of internal playtesting on this thing (which they should btw), anyone with an ounce of honesty and decency who played this demo would have said this is totally broken, even from looking at gameplay footage one can tell it's broken, and that's how broken it is, it's THAT obvious. If Dyack would even look at the demo and play it for more than a minute he would be realized it, if he even has any clue about how a 3D action game should play.

 

[Ark-AMN]

Don't they get feedback from their own internal playtesting? That's what it's for, so you can get feedback before you push out a broken demo.

Because I'm sure if they were doing any kind of internal playtesting on this thing (which they should btw), anyone with an ounce of honesty and decency who played this demo would have said this is totally broken, even from looking at gameplay footage one can tell it's broken, and that's how broken it is, it's THAT obvious. If Dyack would even look at the demo and play it for more than a minute he would be realized it, if he even has any clue about how a 3D action game should play.

Again, you're making assumptions based on no evidence. We have heard however that SK had very little time to get something ready for E3, given those circumstances, it sounds highly unlikely any focus testing would be done since all effort would be just focused on making something that is "playable" in the simplest form.

And duh, its not like Denis or SK are denying the problems, hell, they're practically shouting while admitting them. Of course they probably noticed the bad framerates and animation beforehand, but then again, since we don't know exactly why it was shown, there's no way to say for sure why to begin with.

 

[bluemax]

anyone?

Originally it was some awesome sounding non linear sci fi adventure/rpg type deal.

Now it's some space marine in big armor beating things up with martial arts game.

Or something to that effect.

 

[Mallrat83]

To get feedback. Feedback is very important, even if its all negative. As for why it was shown, I would have loved to be in the meetings were that decision was made, but I wasn't. So any speculation on my part, or others would be of little use, until we hear from either MS or Denis the reason.

How the heck is feedback from the public supposed to work on a broken demo? That makes no sense in the world. What are people going to comment on that isn't already stupidly obvious?

John Doe: "This game sucks my ass. Make it better."

Dyack: "Brilliant! OMGWTFBBQRIBSWITHSIDEORDEROFGREASYSHITANDFATTYOILSTHATWILLMAKEMEGETEVENBIGGERBYNEXTE3!!"

 

[Draft]

Ark-AMN make sure you put this thread on your resume.

 

[Ark-AMN]

How the heck is feedback from the public supposed to work on a broken demo? That makes no sense in the world. What are people going to comment on that isn't already stupidly obvious?

John Doe: "This game sucks my ass. Make it better."

Dyack: "Brilliant! OMGWTFBBQRIBSWITHSIDEORDEROFGREASYSHITANDFATTYOILSTHATWILLMAKEMEGETEVENBIGGERBYNEXTE3!!"

Thing is, unlike most people here, those at the show weren't going up to the reps with comments like "This game sucks ass!!!", they actually had CONSTRUCTIVE feedback, which seems to be something this forum doesn't excel at giving. :lol

 

[RaijinFY]

Well, if it sucks I"m sure it'll be delayed. MS is pretty good in regards to delaying games to give them the proper amount of time to be finished like with Crimson Skies and Brute Force. It didn't work out so well for BF, but went great for CS, soooo let's hope it's the former!

They better let finish the game with a budget estimated between $20-30M...

 

[Kittonwy]

You would certainly be correct. However, IMO, this is the nature of the beast when it comes to floor demos--what is playable and appropriate for demonstration, vs. something that has to stand on its own and be playable without having to worry about giving up key elements you want to keep secret. Remember how PGR3 had two builds--one to show the press that looked beautiful but was VERY unstable, and a stable 'ugly' build that didn't look up to snuff but could be played well enough without fear of crashing every 20 seconds--I'd liken it to that, only extremely rushed to make it to E3, which doesn't help anyone.

What gives Dyack the insane idea that people are going to copy from HIM of all people? Shouldn't people like SCEA's Jaffe/Barlog, and Capcom PD1's Hideki Itsuno/Kobayashi, stay the smurf away from Dyack so Dyack can't smooch off of them (and Itsuno/Kobayashi were in fact absent from E3)?

The problem is that this so-called demo isn't playable gameplay-wise, not to mention choppy in framerate, AND it's not doing anything unique in gameplay at all, it basically accomplished nothing aside from proving that Too Human isn't vaporware.

 

[ypo]

Hey guys, which one do you think will end up being the better game? Too Human or Duke Nukem Forever?

 

[Kittonwy]

Again, you're making assumptions based on no evidence. We have heard however that SK had very little time to get something ready for E3, given those circumstances, it sounds highly unlikely any focus testing would be done since all effort would be just focused on making something that is "playable" in the simplest form.

And duh, its not like Denis or SK are denying the problems, hell, they're practically shouting while admitting them. Of course they probably noticed the bad framerates and animation beforehand, but then again, since we don't know exactly why it was shown, there's no way to say for sure why to begin with.

And that's not an assumption on your part?

You're making an action game, why wouldn't playtesting be part of your normal game-making process from the get-go? How do you know something is playable? You PLAY it, and even someone WATCHING someone else playing this can tell this is completely broken. How can ANYONE release a demo like that in good faith?

How do you define playable? Because for me, something so broken shouldn't even qualify as being "playable", this is basically a little better than a tech demo, not something that should be put on the show floor. No combos, enemies don't attack properly, die in one hit, the environment doesn't do anything, what exactly was the point of the demo?

So what if they're admitting the problems? It's like me admitting the sun gives off heat and light. The problems are THAT obvious. There is a much bigger problem than animations and framerate, THEY HAVE NO GAMEPLAY.

The game's supposed high points are what? Story? Didn't show it. Camera? Didn't show it. Interesting combat? Didn't show it. Environment? What was so special about it?

 

[Jibber Hack]

Too Human broke my heart more than playing Metroid on the Wii. That takes extreme effort. I've been looking forward to this game since I first read about it in EGM so long ago... Now, I can only hope that the team can get it together for a year end release. The probably should have taken this E3 off like the Alan Wake team...

 

[Kittonwy]

Thing is, unlike most people here, those at the show weren't going up to the reps with comments like "This game sucks ass!!!", they actually had CONSTRUCTIVE feedback, which seems to be something this forum doesn't excel at giving. :lol

What kind of constructive feedback are you expecting? Because the demo had nothing that was worth improving on, if it had anything at all, you run around, things just die in one hit and you have no idea what the smurf you just did, how do you give feedback on that?

No one here can even tell me what the smurf combos they were doing in the demo. If this is a REAL 3D action game that has GAMEPLAY, even from watching people play I can tell you whether the recovery time was too long after a move, or that a certain move doesn't get enough range, or that combining moves seem a little too loose or too hard to execute, or what a certain move could have been followed by. The Too Human demo was practically impossible to tell what one is doing in the first place, let alone commenting on something you can't smurfin' figure out, I spent minutes watching Morgan Webb on G4TV wondering what the smurf she was doing and what the smurf was happening in the demo while Dyack smurfin' blabbed away with the same Too Human PR again and again in the background.

My "constructive criticism" would be next time they release a demo, get someone who has actually played at least ONE decent 3D action game in his or her entire life to play it once. Playtest your games, it lets you know whether it's smurfin' crap or not.

 

[Ark-AMN]

We get it kittonwy, you don't like the game and you probably won't buy it. That being the case, there's no reason to listen to what you say especially given your feedback isn't constructive in the least. Or the fact that you didn't even play it yourself.

and your little emoticon is really getting on my nerves