Support NeoGAF

[Y2Kev]

I don't object on spec to Dyack namedropping Shakespeare, but the remark about doing dirty jokes for the groundlings and more elevated fare for the aristocracy is bunk. For a start, the Elizabethan aristocracy were at least as sordid in their proclivities as the peasants, and probably a damned sight dirtier given the leisure and privacy to experiment. What's more, reliable scholarship has shown that we have, over the centuries, significantly underestimated the intellect and ability to track narrative of the common folk who went to watch Elizabethan theatre. For one thing, following sermons as if (as you might well have believed) your immortal soul depended on it would conceivably have trained the mind to keep up with a good deal of the vocabulary and wordplay on offer.

The point isn't just academic - Dyack's bogus ideas about Shakespeare are irrelevant in themselves, for sure, but having this patronising audience dichotomy driving game design sucks. Gamers who want a workable combat system aren't guffawing peasants. I for one won't have my irritation with a substandard game tempered by the idea that entry-level moral philosophy inspired this or that part of it. Just make a good game, and stop pretending that you have the artistic elbow-room to pontificate about how different bits of it will change the lives of different gamers.

Great, great post.

 

[jet1911]

is that ronald mcdonald? on GTA4?

It's probably from Saint's Row.

 

[Gahiggidy]

I don't object on spec to Dyack namedropping Shakespeare, but the remark about doing dirty jokes for the groundlings and more elevated fare for the aristocracy is bunk. For a start, the Elizabethan aristocracy were at least as sordid in their proclivities as the peasants, and probably a damned sight dirtier given the leisure and privacy to experiment. What's more, reliable scholarship has shown that we have, over the centuries, significantly underestimated the intellect and ability to track narrative of the common folk who went to watch Elizabethan theatre. For one thing, following sermons as if (as you might well have believed) your immortal soul depended on it would conceivably have trained the mind to keep up with a good deal of the vocabulary and wordplay on offer.

The point isn't just academic - Dyack's bogus ideas about Shakespeare are irrelevant in themselves, for sure, but having this patronising audience dichotomy driving game design sucks. Gamers who want a workable combat system aren't guffawing peasants. I for one won't have my irritation with a substandard game tempered by the idea that entry-level moral philosophy inspired this or that part of it. Just make a good game, and stop pretending that you have the artistic elbow-room to pontificate about how different bits of it will change the lives of different gamers.

Mod material?

 

[JB1981]

I hope this is GOTY.

This thread is enough to make someone never want to visit this site again.

****ing pathetic.

 

[PleoMax]

I don't object on spec to Dyack namedropping Shakespeare, but the remark about doing dirty jokes for the groundlings and more elevated fare for the aristocracy is bunk. For a start, the Elizabethan aristocracy were at least as sordid in their proclivities as the peasants, and probably a damned sight dirtier given the leisure and privacy to experiment. What's more, reliable scholarship has shown that we have, over the centuries, significantly underestimated the intellect and ability to track narrative of the common folk who went to watch Elizabethan theatre. For one thing, following sermons as if (as you might well have believed) your immortal soul depended on it would conceivably have trained the mind to keep up with a good deal of the vocabulary and wordplay on offer.

The point isn't just academic - Dyack's bogus ideas about Shakespeare are irrelevant in themselves, for sure, but having this patronising audience dichotomy driving game design sucks. Gamers who want a workable combat system aren't guffawing peasants. I for one won't have my irritation with a substandard game tempered by the idea that entry-level moral philosophy inspired this or that part of it. Just make a good game, and stop pretending that you have the artistic elbow-room to pontificate about how different bits of it will change the lives of different gamers.

The Elizabethan theatre analogy does throw up something interesting, though - staggered costs of admission. If I'm only buying it to crunch an oversized sabre into some robots/aliens/as yet not all that clearly defined foes, do I have to pay the same price as the aristocrats soaking up all the philosophy / Tolstoyan gravitas / Nabokovian brio ?

Cleverness = microtransactable commodity ?

 

[SeatBelts]

This thread is too :lol

 

[Fatalah]

Hey, Eternal Darkness was one of the best games I played on the 'cube. I have friends that I showed the game to that aren't gamers that mention the game from time to time.

We need more developers like Denis to change the way stories are formed in games. Somehow the hype leading up to his games is what ruffles everyone's feathers. If Too Human were coming from a no name developer, with no public contact, we wouldn't have threads like this.

GAF ends up biting the hand that feeds.

 

[Hitler Stole My Potato]

I don't object on spec to Dyack namedropping Shakespeare, but the remark about doing dirty jokes for the groundlings and more elevated fare for the aristocracy is bunk. For a start, the Elizabethan aristocracy were at least as sordid in their proclivities as the peasants, and probably a damned sight dirtier given the leisure and privacy to experiment. What's more, reliable scholarship has shown that we have, over the centuries, significantly underestimated the intellect and ability to track narrative of the common folk who went to watch Elizabethan theatre. For one thing, following sermons as if (as you might well have believed) your immortal soul depended on it would conceivably have trained the mind to keep up with a good deal of the vocabulary and wordplay on offer.

The point isn't just academic - Dyack's bogus ideas about Shakespeare are irrelevant in themselves, for sure, but having this patronising audience dichotomy driving game design sucks. Gamers who want a workable combat system aren't guffawing peasants. I for one won't have my irritation with a substandard game tempered by the idea that entry-level moral philosophy inspired this or that part of it. Just make a good game, and stop pretending that you have the artistic elbow-room to pontificate about how different bits of it will change the lives of different gamers.

The Elizabethan theatre analogy does throw up something interesting, though - staggered costs of admission. If I'm only buying it to crunch an oversized sabre into some robots/aliens/as yet not all that clearly defined foes, do I have to pay the same price as the aristocrats soaking up all the philosophy / Tolstoyan gravitas / Nabokovian brio ?

Cleverness = microtransactable commodity ?

:insert 100 rolling eyes emoticons:

If all your posts are going to be this full of shit, please tell us now so we can put you on ignore.

 

[tissot]

:lol :lol :lol

Haven't seen that one before.

 

[KGKK]

:lol :lol :lol Thats jks:lol

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

I hope this is GOTY.

This thread is enough to make someone never want to visit this site again.

****ing pathetic.

Agreed.

Oh and Salazar you're a...nevermind..not worth getting banned over.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h204/snozberry_/test8.jpg

I'd laugh but my math is actually worse than that.

 

[sprsk]

I don't object on spec to Dyack namedropping Shakespeare, but the remark about doing dirty jokes for the groundlings and more elevated fare for the aristocracy is bunk. For a start, the Elizabethan aristocracy were at least as sordid in their proclivities as the peasants, and probably a damned sight dirtier given the leisure and privacy to experiment. What's more, reliable scholarship has shown that we have, over the centuries, significantly underestimated the intellect and ability to track narrative of the common folk who went to watch Elizabethan theatre. For one thing, following sermons as if (as you might well have believed) your immortal soul depended on it would conceivably have trained the mind to keep up with a good deal of the vocabulary and wordplay on offer.

The point isn't just academic - Dyack's bogus ideas about Shakespeare are irrelevant in themselves, for sure, but having this patronising audience dichotomy driving game design sucks. Gamers who want a workable combat system aren't guffawing peasants. I for one won't have my irritation with a substandard game tempered by the idea that entry-level moral philosophy inspired this or that part of it. Just make a good game, and stop pretending that you have the artistic elbow-room to pontificate about how different bits of it will change the lives of different gamers.

This post is correct.

 

[Ark-AMN]

This post is correct.

Ah, a sterling example of why Denis is absolutely right not to visit this board. When a mod himself contributes to the unwarranted attacks.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

Ah, a sterling example of why Denis is absolutely right not to visit this board. When a mod himself contributes to the unwarranted attacks.

Spoiler

I agree with you

But I blacked it out so I don't get banned

 

[sprsk]

Ah, a sterling example of why Denis is absolutely right not to visit this board. When a mod himself contributes to the unwarranted attacks.

Salazar is just calling for good game design first, what is flammatory or wrong about that?

I can put all the Shakespeare I want in a game, it isn't going to make it a good "GAME" maybe a better interactive novel.

The people that found that post inflammatory really should take a step back and look at themselves.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

I am sorry to see not much has changed here on the GAF. There should be no question as to why many developers do not post here. Thanks to those who were positive and made some logical comments.

To me the passing around these pictures/comments is like smashing the conch which alludes to many of the secondary themes in Lord of the Flies.

In time these comments will be bearers of fruit. Unfortunately for many here, they are going to be very bitter.

It's fine if you want to play the media to promote your game, but don't get up on the cross if a) you aren't good at it, or b) you don't have the product to back it up. If the public took every hyperbolic self-promoting developer's words at face value, we've been gorging on nothing but digital ambrosia for the last three decades.

 

[Ark-AMN]

Salazar is just calling for good game design first, what is flammatory or wrong about that?

I can put all the Shakespeare I want in a game, it isn't going to make it a good "GAME" maybe a better interactive novel.

The people that found that post inflammatory really should take a step back and look at themselves.

I don't recall Denis ever saying that Shakespeare is the holy grail to a great game. He only mentions him and other luminaries as his inspirations, nothing more. The problem I have with Salazar's pontificating posts is that he's automatically assuming that Too Human is going to be a bad game (like so many others have), as if he'a already played it, which of course, he hasn't.

 

[sprsk]

I don't recall Denis ever saying that Shakespeare is the holy grail to a great game. He only mentions him and other luminaries as his inspirations, nothing more. The problem I have with Salazar's pontificating posts is that he's automatically assuming that Too Human is going to be a bad game (like so many others have), as if he'a already played it, which of course, he hasn't.

What weve seen has not shown promise in the actual game portion. Framerate and graphics problems aside, it looks like an average action game at best.

 

[Raistlin]

In before lame Duke Nukem Forever joke.

Considering this game is second only to DNF for dev time ... why wouldn't a joke be appropriate?

 

[buckfutter]

It was nice to refrain from following this thread until it reached five pages, and have a post as great as Salazar's immediately available to suggest the full proceedings. Yet again, the lesson is that it is best to keep the **** away from threads about Too Human.

 

[Ark-AMN]

Yet again, the lesson is that it is best to keep the **** away from threads about Too Human.

Amazingly for all the hate it gets. Too Human threads are consistently able to bring in a large amount of views/posts.

What weve seen has not shown promise in the actual game portion. Framerate and graphics problems aside, it looks like an average action game at best.

And yet your only reference again is still a massively crippled pre-pre-pre Alpha demo that MS admitted was never meant to be shown.

 

[llTll]

:lol :lol

 

[GreekWolf]

Salazar is just calling for good game design first, what is flammatory or wrong about that?

I can put all the Shakespeare I want in a game, it isn't going to make it a good "GAME" maybe a better interactive novel.

The people that found that post inflammatory really should take a step back and look at themselves.

Nonsense. His entire post comes off as bloated, self-righteous gobbledygook. There's nothing even remotely constructive there. It's more than a bit silly to be casting stones at a product before it's even seen the light of day. Maybe the game will turn out to be nothing more than an interactive novel... or maybe it'll be the kick-ass action/adventure that Denis has been promising. Until we have an opportunity to play through it and see for ourselves how it stacks up, then all the incessant griping is nothing more than juvenile mud-slinging.

 

[Fady K]

:lol Whats going on here???

This news doesnt surprise me too much, but I still really look forward to the game, I just really like Silicon Knights.

 

[Kobold]

I don't object on spec to Dyack namedropping Shakespeare, but the remark about doing dirty jokes for the groundlings and more elevated fare...

*more irrelevant blabla*

...make a good game, and stop pretending that you have the artistic elbow-room to pontificate about how different bits of it will change the lives of different gamers.

Let's take a random old interview that seriously and let's bring everyting someone says out of context just for the sake of having something ludicrous to nag about.

It is fun, it will heighten your game experience.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Nonsense. His entire post comes off as bloated, self-righteous gobbledygook. There's nothing even remotely constructive there. It's more than a bit silly to be casting stones at a product before it's even seen the light of day. Maybe the game will turn out to be nothing more than an interactive novel... or maybe it'll be the kick-ass action/adventure that Denis has been promising. Until we have an opportunity to play through it and see for ourselves how it stacks up, then all the incessant griping is nothing more than juvenile mud-slinging.

He wasn't the one using some bizarre method of literary reference dropping, making incredibly confusing promises, and then recalling his inane reference at the first sign of hostility. I think it's more than fair to be worried that such... oddity might get in the way of the game, especially when it might not be genuine as was pointed out.

 

[Salazar]

What I think is constructive is objecting to the attitude that Dyack's comments seem to point to - I'm keen as all get out for Too Human to be a great game, and I think that the IGN hands-on/media splurge is going to be a stunning, warming turn-around in the game's fortunes and reputation. I just wanted to say that Shakespeare didn't write his plays like that, and I don't have much respect for the attitude that splits an audience up into clever folks and not so clever folks. If the game's good, it'll please a range of gamers - you can't tell people in advance if - let alone how - that is going to play out.

If you're putting together your game with a focus-group mentality - fine - but stop suggesting that there's anything Shakespearean, or really very artistic at all, about that.

 

[yukoner]

Salazar is just calling for good game design first, what is flammatory or wrong about that?

I can put all the Shakespeare I want in a game, it isn't going to make it a good "GAME" maybe a better interactive novel.

The people that found that post inflammatory really should take a step back and look at themselves.

No he's putting words in Denis's mouth, and creating a false dichotemy where Denis apparently views everyone as either a "guffawing peasant" or a philosopher.

All Denis really said is that he will try and make a game that has some high level philosophy, laced in with some good low-brow humour/excitement.

That's sounds like great game design to me.

It was simply one example to demonstrate his general philosophy towards the design. Going off on tangents about whether Shakespeare really wrote that way, or the general intelligence of the peasents, is really irrelevant.

It was simply an example to illustrate a simple and basic philosphy of combining humour with more serious messages.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

Amazingly for all the hate it gets. Too Human threads are consistently able to bring in a large amount of views/posts.

And yet your only reference again is still a massively crippled pre-pre-pre Alpha demo that MS admitted was never meant to be shown.

Nice post.

Yeah, agreed. I'm in a positive attitude today, so why not?

 

[Aaron]

And yet your only reference again is still a massively crippled pre-pre-pre Alpha demo that MS admitted was never meant to be shown.

You're trying too hard to spin this. The demo was clearly alpha and limited, but it did provide some insight in how the action portion of the game was formed at that time, and might have even resulted in some feedback to solve some of the less tech related flaws involved in said demo, like the sword fighting, as it was, was pretty ridiculous in implementation, and the camera was so far back it felt like playing from orbit. If you pressed your face to the screen, you could see the actual visuals were very nice, from tech and style points. It was just that for some people, including myself, the base gameplay just wasn't working as it was. There's nothing in that demo that couldn't have been, and might already have been, fixed, so there's no reason to cry foul when there's even a remote chance someone might mention it.

I think overall it was more of a benefit to Too Human than a hinderance. As for philosphy in games, I think it's possible, it's just not something most aspire to, or if they do have to either rush through it to meet a deadline, or are forced to dumb it down for the general public, but there's still nothing wrong for trying.

 

[AzureNightmare]

 

[fresquito]

No he's putting words in Denis's mouth, and creating a false dichotemy where Denis apparently views everyone as either a "guffawing peasant" or a philosopher.

All Denis really said is that he will try and make a game that has some high level philosophy, laced in with some good low-brow humour/excitement.

That's sounds like great game design to me.

It was simply one example to demonstrate his general philosophy towards the design. Going off on tangents about whether Shakespeare really wrote that way, or the general intelligence of the peasents, is really irrelevant.

It was simply an example to illustrate a simple and basic philosphy of combining humour with more serious messages.

That doesn't sound like good GAME design at all.

You know, I was a believer, but after all these years, I've stopped to believe. All the promises have been hardly met, and built expectations haven't met reality. I remember when I was anticipating Eternal Darkness. In advance I'll say I think it's a very good game, and quite different from anything I've played, but I wish more thought was put on GAME design and less on following Lovecraft's words. The sanity-health-magic triad was totally broken. There was no good reason why insanity would kill you. There was no reason why you would recover sanity by casting a spell. And there was no reason why you'd recover magic by walking around. In the end I spent a lot of time running in circles to regain some magic, then cast a spell to recover from insanity so I wouldn't die, thus refraining me from experience the most genuine aspect of the game: the insanity effects. And I won't talk about combat, puzzle solving and other stuff...

Many promises were delivered by Dyack in relation to MGS:TTS. Not one of them was met in the end. So, sorry, I can't believe this guy. He's simply yet to prove himself to be a good GAME developer and not just some kind of visionary that doesn't know how to fit his very good and interesting ideas in a game.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I'm not a Silicon Knights fan, but holy ****ing crap, guys. Maybe it's better to wait until Too Human is officially shown off in presentable form first before dismembering the devs. That way, they can actually get to the point where they're talking about the entire game concept before people start in with the pent-up hate.

 

[X26]

I'm not a Silicon Knights fan, but holy ****ing crap, guys. Maybe it's better to wait until Too Human is officially shown off in presentable form first before dismembering the devs. That way, they can actually get to the point where they're talking about the entire game concept before people start in with the pent-up hate.

Like this isn't the case for all games here. Really people shouldn't take it so seriously and see that NeoGAF like every gaming messageboard is relatively reactionary and will comment on things on a whole as is.

 

[abacab driver]

That doesn't sound like good GAME design at all.

You know, I was a believer, but after all these years, I've stopped to believe. All the promises have been hardly met, and built expectations haven't met reality. I remember when I was anticipating Eternal Darkness. In advance I'll say I think it's a very good game, and quite different from anything I've played, but I wish more thought was put on GAME design and less on following Lovecraft's words. The sanity-health-magic triad was totally broken. There was no good reason why insanity would kill you. There was no reason why you would recover sanity by casting a spell. And there was no reason why you'd recover magic by walking around. In the end I spent a lot of time running in circles to regain some magic, then cast a spell to recover from insanity so I wouldn't die, thus refraining me from experience the most genuine aspect of the game: the insanity effects. And I won't talk about combat, puzzle solving and other stuff...

Many promises were delivered by Dyack in relation to MGS:TTS. Not one of them was met in the end. So, sorry, I can't believe this guy. He's simply yet to prove himself to be a good GAME developer and not just some kind of visionary that doesn't know how to fit his very good and interesting ideas in a game.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Like this isn't the case for all games here. Really people shouldn't take it so seriously and see that NeoGAF like every gaming messageboard is relatively reactionary and will comment on things on a whole as is.

This is just more psycho-judgemental than normal, that's all. I'd like to see this game turn out to beat the odds 'n shit, because it's in my best interests as a gamer to have another cool game to play...especially if it delivers with the previously talked about online co-op. And, of course, I really like the beat 'em up/hack 'n slash/fighting-ARPG genre.

 

[Salazar]

If I've gone off on a tangent in talking about Shakespeare and the intelligence of crowds, it's only because that's the door Dyack opened. He's chest-beating like nobody's business about the cultural scope of his work, and I would have scoffed in any case at a game-maker saying their game was going to get kids talking about German philosophy. In the context of general - hell, inveterate - boastfulness about the merits of Too Human, I think the chat about Shakespeare and the namedropping deserves some dubious scrutiny.

I could just laugh at it, but that would be even less constructive.

 

[Kobold]

What I think is constructive is objecting to the attitude that Dyack's comments seem to point to - I'm keen as all get out for Too Human to be a great game, and I think that the IGN hands-on/media splurge is going to be a stunning, warming turn-around in the game's fortunes and reputation. I just wanted to say that Shakespeare didn't write his plays like that, and I don't have much respect for the attitude that splits an audience up into clever folks and not so clever folks. If the game's good, it'll please a range of gamers - you can't tell people in advance if - let alone how - that is going to play out.

If you're putting together your game with a focus-group mentality - fine - but stop suggesting that there's anything Shakespearean, or really very artistic at all, about that.

Seriously, this whole thing seems really pointless.

Personally I am not interested how a developer comes to a certain motivation for storyline or gameplay. I am just interested how it turns out.

Also, I think you are being just a little bit overly hysterical about the fact that someone apperantly gets influenced by a lot of things, such as Shakespare and mentions this when asked in an interview. It's not up to you to take these comments from someone and make it up to be some kind of position of derogatory disdain for some people as opposed to the other. Seems like you want it to be like that, as opposed to it actually being ment as such.

If you want my view of what Denis Dyack ment, without all this nonsense of fainted personal insult about supposed elitism, is simply that there is a depth to the game that finds it roots in what Denis Dyack discribes as a much used format for storytelling (for example in Shakespeare), while staying interesting for people who are not into delving for deeper meanings, interesting background/historical references and symbolism.

And that sounds all good to me. So whatever crazy things Denis Dyack may say in the past, present or future. His game will do the talking when it's out. Then we can see if it's vocabulary is in check.

 

[kylej]

What weve seen has not shown promise in the actual game portion. Framerate and graphics problems aside, it looks like an average action game at best.

Jesus christ.

 

[Kobold]

Jesus christ.

 

[sprsk]

Jesus christ.

Was I being too positive?

Maybe Dyack can come in here and tell us that the build ****ed up his fighting mechanics too.

 

[nelsonroyale]

I dont get the hype for this game...it 'sounds' ambitious enough to some degree...but nothing at all has been demonstrated to back up this up...wait and see is the best policy...they need to show something, since the E3 showing wasn't hot at all...I initially thought this was going to be some blade runner cyper punk rpg, but it doesnt seem that way anymore

peace

 

[Salazar]

If the only problem you have with my pontificating posts is that I've automatically assumed that Too Human is going to be a bad game (without, obviously, having played or even seen a great deal of it), then you have no problem with my posts. Read them again.

I reckon it could be a great game - I haven't assumed, much less said, otherwise. I think it's interesting that Dyack hypes his game through philosophy and literature. Comical a lot of the time, but interesting. As for the suggestion that quoting from Dyack's interviews is somehow dishonourable: someone who feeds out that much rhetorical rope should expect to get hanged with it every so often. Besides, the alternative is to just let the hype (because that's what it is - even if it is rococo, haute-culture PR) wash over you ?

 

[Kobold]

Was I being too positive?

Maybe Dyack can come in here and tell us that the build ****ed up his fighting mechanics too.

Whoa, so much anger!

If the only problem you have with my pontificating posts is that I've automatically assumed that Too Human is going to be a bad game (without, obviously, having played or even seen a great deal of it), then you have no problem with my posts. Read them again.

I reckon it could be a great game - I haven't assumed, much less said, otherwise. I think it's interesting that Dyack hypes his game through philosophy and literature. Comical a lot of the time, but interesting. As for the suggestion that quoting from Dyack's interviews is somehow dishonourable: someone who feeds out that much rhetorical rope should expect to get hanged with it every so often. Besides, the alternative is to just let the hype (because that's what it is - even if it is rococo, haute-culture PR) wash over you ?

Not sure who you are addressing, But I’m here, so I'll answer. My post nowhere refers to your like or dislike of the game. Simply your (in my eyes overdrawn) reaction to Denis Dyack's interview.

As you of course know, hype is not made by Microsoft or Denis Dyack, or Sony of Nintendo. It's made in your head. Personally, and like I say in my reaction to your post, you should let the end product do the talking. Therefore your overdrawn reaction to some totally irrelevant old interview (where he was asked this question of motivation) seems to indicate to me that you do put too much worth into these insignificant PR.

If I was you I wouldn't be so personally offended, and spend my time doing something more enjoyable. Then when the game is your hand, via demo, rent, or whatever, you can pass your scrutiny and judgement. Because I don't think it's Denis Dyack's intellectual motivations that you are going to be playing, but the end product of his, and an entire team's efforts.

But, of course, you are entitled to see your (possibly faked??? THE PLOT THICKENS, COULD BE SHAKESPEARE) reactions in these threads as a game in itself. In that case, I salute you and do hope you proceed to vocalize your irrelevant banter and semi-offended intellectual tirades.

If not, for crying out loud, they are games. Are they worth aggravating yourself over so?

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

words and more words

Are all of your posts going to be like this?

 

[bud]

**** the haters..........I still believe.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN OBAMA

 

[FrankT]

Great, great post.

More like tard post of the month.

 

[antiloop]

Could be a great game with all that extra dev time. It has at least some potential.

 

[djtiesto]

Creative "geniuses" like Dyack will run the industry dry. Taking years and years perfecting some overblown work of "art" is vain and pointless. If you want to tell a story, go write a ****ing book. Remember when a fun video game could be developed in three months by a team of two or three guys? Now games have to be some kind of sensually-engrossing multimedia experience. Make something fun to PLAY and release it. Let us use our imagination to fill in the blanks. I almost think Dyack relishes this kind of unwarranted attention and delays his games on purpose.

Can you imagine a company taking this long to develop a game in the 80's, or even the 90's? Too Human was freaking in development for *PS1* for christsakes!

Best post of the thread... No offense to all the art-fruits but games should be mostly about FUN, not trying to deliver an emotionally gripping experience about the human condition that touches the soul, or whatever bullshit... nearly every single game that attempted to do this has come off as pretentious wank (remember MGS2, widely considered the low point of that particular series?). Focus on creating an engrossing, fairly original gameplay experience first, THEN worry about the plotline.

 

[Geoff9920]

Best post of the thread... No offense to all the art-fruits but games should be mostly about FUN, not trying to deliver an emotionally gripping experience about the human condition that touches the soul, or whatever bullshit... nearly every single game that attempted to do this has come off as pretentious wank (remember MGS2, widely considered the low point of that particular series?). Focus on creating an engrossing, fairly original gameplay experience first, THEN worry about the plotline.

Why single out MGS 2? It's not like MGS/MGS 3 had any less story.

Personally, I think Bioware is a great example of a company that proves you can put story as a major priority and still make excellent games. Besides, things would be boring if everyone took the same approach to game design.