Dyack: "If you dislike Too Human, you just don't get it"

[Zeus]

This guy lives in a world all on his own

http://www.destructoid.com/too-human-ha ... 0266.phtml

He must be loving the 7 or so avg the game's getting so far. Guess the critics really don't get it either, it's not just us gamers who are stupid

[Tessian]

Isn't that what the developers of Lair said when everyone bashed it during its release?

[kali o.]

I tried to actually buy it today (and yes, OFF TOPIC, all those Alien Nation DVDs) and found out it wasn't coming in until Wed/Thurs.

So the guy is defending his game, so what? To be fair, a lot of people don't get what the game is going into it (devs fault, media fault or players fault, whatever). Honestly, I don't get the desire to hate on this game....it's like if a game is known to be in development for a long time, people WANT to trash it. /shrug

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

In defense of the haters (I'm not one of them — I'm planning on picking the game up when it comes out over here), Dyack has gone out of his way to antagonise pretty much everybody (the press, message board posters and administrators, other developers; anybody not rabidly enthusiastic about the game, really) during Too Human's development. It's not just that the game has been in development for a long time; it's that Dyack has been very outspoken in his views, and a lot of them are batshit insane and insulting.

[Zeus]

I tried to actually buy it today (and yes, OFF TOPIC, all those Alien Nation DVDs) and found out it wasn't coming in until Wed/Thurs.

So the guy is defending his game, so what? To be fair, a lot of people don't get what the game is going into it (devs fault, media fault or players fault, whatever). Honestly, I don't get the desire to hate on this game....it's like if a game is known to be in development for a long time, people WANT to trash it. /shrug

It has nothing to do with people wanting to hate it, that's not really the point I was trying to make. What Dyack has essentially said is:

"If you don't like the game, it's your fault for not getting what the game is all about. It has nothing to do with how we made the game, the game is perfect as it is. If you don't agree with me, you're wrong, period"

It's how he's defending his game not what others think of it. I'll admit, I have extremely low expectations for it, but I don't have a hate on. I've always said "Dyack, based on your previous releases aside from MGS which was controlled by Nintendo and Konami, you have to prove to me your game is good". And he's done nothing but say "this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'll show you". And now that he's getting an average score, he's crying saying "you dumbasses, you don't get it" to everyone who hasn't jerked themselves off to the game.

[kali o.]

It has nothing to do with people wanting to hate it, that's not really the point I was trying to make. What Dyack has essentially said is:

"If you don't like the game, it's your fault for not getting what the game is all about. It has nothing to do with how we made the game, the game is perfect as it is. If you don't agree with me, you're wrong, period"

It's how he's defending his game not what others think of it. I'll admit, I have extremely low expectations for it, but I don't have a hate on. I've always said "Dyack, based on your previous releases aside from MGS which was controlled by Nintendo and Konami, you have to prove to me your game is good". And he's done nothing but say "this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'll show you". And now that he's getting an average score, he's crying saying "you dumbasses, you don't get it" to everyone who hasn't jerked themselves off to the game.

Wow...like hyperbole much?

And if you look at every (pseudo)quote you attribute to Dyack...he never said any of that. You choose to infer what you will from what he does actually say, twist it and regurgitate laced with maximum hate...and thus proving my point.

I am well aware that Dyack has his own Molyneux-slash-Romaro personality type going, and lord knows how the internet nerds love to rebel against that (and nevermind any game maker that actively posts on forums...forget that shit, it all ends in epic flames/saga's)...but the hate for the actual project (and the team) is dumb and unfounded as far as I can see.

/shrug

[Tessian]

I love the concept, but some parts of the game really irritated me in the demo. Camera and Inventory systems both suck. Camera is hard to control and you end up just flailing around in battle to make sure you don't get hit by something off camera. I like looting better items all the time... but I quickly grew tired of having to check my inv after every battle to see if what I picked up is better than what I got on. Plus this guy's a freakin god-- why is Enemy Robot Drone #2569-B carrying a better pair of boots than me??

I wanted to love this game... but while it's still a game worth playing I think the Force Unleashed is more what I want.

[Kupek]

Direct quote,

But one of the interesting things... it's funny because you look at it... I think we took for granted how innovative the game was. First of all, the demo got a tremendous amount of attention. We've had over a million downloads, the reception has been by and large extremely positive.

But what we're also seeing is for the people who don't like it, generally just don't get it. And it's because we've created something so innovative and different. It's ironic, it just shows that human nature of if you don't understand something, you immediately attack it. It's pretty interesting in that regard.

Once people understand it, you can almost see it click with them. Once they stop trying to fight the camera. As soon as you hear someone say the controls are really simple or the gameplay is not very deep, that's absolutely not true. Too Human is extremely, deceptively deep. Once that stuff clicks, those are the people that are going round telling ten other friends. I guess the word of mouth for Too Human is really going to carry it to ground now.

I heard the guys on 1up Yours talk about the game - I assume they've played a final build, and not just the demo. They described single player Diablo. I think the conclusion was it's solid, but nothing genere-busting or spectacular.

[Tessian]

Since when is a Third Person action RPG "innovative and different"? It seems like a pretty solid game, but I don't see it being a departure from the norm.

[SineSwiper]

Well, the story is certainly unique, if that's the right word. The combat is pretty cool, but again, it's not innovative.

[SineSwiper]

I heard the guys on 1up Yours talk about the game - I assume they've played a final build, and not just the demo. They described single player Diablo. I think the conclusion was it's solid, but nothing genere-busting or spectacular.

Random observation: When somebody is trying to insult a game's mechanics as being dumbed-down and not innovative, they call it "Diablo". However, when the real Diablo gets a sequel, people start flailing their arms like Jesus is coming.

[Kupek]

Probably because Blizzard has some of the best game production in the industry. WoW is EQ at it's heart, just done better.

[Zeus]

It has nothing to do with people wanting to hate it, that's not really the point I was trying to make. What Dyack has essentially said is:

"If you don't like the game, it's your fault for not getting what the game is all about. It has nothing to do with how we made the game, the game is perfect as it is. If you don't agree with me, you're wrong, period"

It's how he's defending his game not what others think of it. I'll admit, I have extremely low expectations for it, but I don't have a hate on. I've always said "Dyack, based on your previous releases aside from MGS which was controlled by Nintendo and Konami, you have to prove to me your game is good". And he's done nothing but say "this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'll show you". And now that he's getting an average score, he's crying saying "you dumbasses, you don't get it" to everyone who hasn't jerked themselves off to the game.

Wow...like hyperbole much?

And if you look at every (pseudo)quote you attribute to Dyack...he never said any of that. You choose to infer what you will from what he does actually say, twist it and regurgitate laced with maximum hate...and thus proving my point.

I am well aware that Dyack has his own Molyneux-slash-Romaro personality type going, and lord knows how the internet nerds love to rebel against that (and nevermind any game maker that actively posts on forums...forget that shit, it all ends in epic flames/saga's)...but the hate for the actual project (and the team) is dumb and unfounded as far as I can see.

/shrug

I'm going based on a couple of things:

1) What he's actually said - quotes are quotes. Read Kup's quote of the article above. "The game is deceptively deep......if you just try, you'll see that it's awesome" (to paraphrase). And not in just that article. If you've read any interview with him, he's ALWAYS saying "yep, we good, you betta recognize, biatches!". Go and look at any of his interviews, he's always got that tone in his voice.

2) What my bud told me about him - I had a friend who worked on MGS:TT (same one who worked at Ubi) and the way he comes across in articles is actually who he is. What I'm telling you about him is essentially how he thinks. It's not an interpretation really, the guy truly thinks he and his team kick ass and if you don't think their games are incredible, you just don't get it.

Remember, I actually have zero opinion on the game. I've never at any point said "this game sucks". I haven't tried the demo, I've only seen snippets of the game. Honestly, a lot of the Diablo clones don't really interest me. But I will try this at some point, my curiosity is piqued at least a little. All I've said is "based on the track record of SK, I'm having reservations over the game until I'm proven different".

My issue is with their head and what he's saying and has nothing to do with the product itself

[Don]

Probably because Blizzard has some of the best game production in the industry. WoW is EQ at it's heart, just done better.

That's not even a remotely accurate statement.

[Kupek]

Would "done prettier" make you happy? I'm not going for a value judgement, just the fact that WoW is printing money, and EQ is not.

Keep in mind you know the details of EQ and WoW. I've played neither and don't plan to. From my perspective, EQ and WoW are two different versions of the same thing.

[Don]

Would "done prettier" make you happy? I'm not going for a value judgement, just the fact that WoW is printing money, and EQ is not.

Keep in mind you know the details of EQ and WoW. I've played neither and don't plan to. From my perspective, EQ and WoW are two different versions of the same thing.

So you resort to the usual 'they make a lot of money so it must be right' argument because you don't know anything about these topic?

Without even passing a judgment on the value of either game, they are still not even remotely the same type of the game. It'd be like saying Street Fighter is a better version of Megaman, or FF13 is a better version of Oblivion. WoW has more in common with a FPS, especially on the PvP side, as opposed to a RPG. They barely even overlap when it comes to target audience and are similar only because both games belong to the MMORPG genre.

[Kupek]

... they are still not even remotely the same type of the game ... similar only because both games belong to the MMORPG genre.

I don't know how you reconcile those two statements.

Compared to all videogames, WoW and EQ are more alike than different. From the perspective of someone who plays videogames, but not MMORPGs, I'm comfortable saying they're basically the same game.

Now, back to the original question: why are people looking forward to Diablo 3, but not other Diablo-like games? Because Blizzard has a history of taking existing genres and - because of high production values - making some of the most popular games in that genre.

Note there's no concept of "right" here, or a value judgment of whether or not Blizzard's games are better than the competition.

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

I have experience with both games, and they're more alike than dissimilar. To say comparing them is like comparing Street Fighter to Megaman is batshit crazy.

[Don]

Your statement would be like saying 'as someone who plays games but not RPGs, FF13 and Oblivion are essentially the same game.' Yeah only if you have no idea what a RPG looks like.

WoW is more like a MMOFPS on the PvP side and Diablo 3 on the PvE side. It is successful precisely because it doesn't fall under the preestablished MMORPG model, which is a relatively small market. The concept of the Welfare Epic is simply unheard of before WoW came out, and this is a key part of the game's success. They took some chances when making the game and it paid off. It could have easily backfired and failed. WoW's implicit assumption is that for every 1 hardcore (whatever this means) player it has, there's probably 50 guys who play that thinks a Baal run in Diablo 2 is the greatest achievement known to man. Of course it is easy to look at WoW now and say they were right, but they had no way of knowing if that really was the case. If the ratio was like say, 1 to 5, WoW would have failed miserably (would never get a critical mass and probably get taken out by a game like AoC or WAR if not earlier). It is still in danger of failing because the 50 part can easily be lured away, which is why WoW markets very aggressively to the casual. The latest Recruit-a-Friend promotion is basically $20 for a level 60 character.

I'm also curious where are the hundreds of Diablo clones that Blizzard 'refined' from to get Diablo, or for matter what big name game did Diablo 1 came from. Even during the height of Diablo 1 and 2 I don't see shelves flooded with clones unlike the case of Starcraft. Now Diablo 2 is obviously a refinement on an existing product, but that's why there's the '2'. Of all the Blizzard games, I consider Starcraft, Diablo, and WoW to be pretty unique. Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 can be considered as a refinement of something that works.

To say that Blizzard is only good at refining games is almost an insult to the company. This argument seems to be only used as an attempt to justification as why Blizzard games look like they're 2 generations behind (because they are). It's like asking why does WoW's graphics suck compared to any MMORPG of the same era. Well you can't be the best at everything out there. Wii is doing fine despite having an obvious firepower disadvantage, but it seems like people have a hard time accepting that their favorite game/system, even when it is having a big lead, might not be the best at everything there is.

[Kupek]

To say that Blizzard is only good at refining games is almost an insult to the company.

Then it's a good thing I didn't say that.

As for everything else, I feel I made my point and continuing to belabor it won't help any.

[Tessian]

Where the hell do you get the statement that WoW has more in common with an FPS than an RPG? WoW IS an MMORPG and no, it doesn't have much more in common with an FPS than any other RPG. There's no aiming, no first person perspective (I don't care that you can change the camera-- WoW is a third person MMORPG; doesn't matter that I can move it to appear like it's first person). WoW is the perfect example of an MMORPG marketed effectively and designed in a way to appeal to a wider audience. It's still in the same vein as EQ, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online, LOTRO, whatever MMO's you want to list.

I wouldn't expect someone like you to make such an obnoxiously wrong statement, wtf are you on? I'd be interested to see how you explain WoW is an MMOFPS, because I believe we'll find you have a very warped idea of what constitutes an FPS.

[SineSwiper]

EQ sucks,

[Don]

Why is WoW PvP like a FPS? Have you seen the PvP tournaments that are being marketed as E-Sports like a FPS? WoW PvP gear is mostly even and has little bearing on the PvE game. Unlike the most MMORPG, the person who plays a lot more doesn't have a huge advantage via gear accumulation. If you look at the actual tournaments Blizzard sponsor you'll notice that everyone actually starts with the same gear so there is zero gear advantage. This isn't like just about any other MMORPG where you can have a top end geared guy go AFK for a minute while being beat on, come back, and kill the guy attacking him in two hits.

There is also extensive use of movement, both from exploiting LoS and trying to get behind someone. In fact movement is even more important than FPS because you can't preemptively try to shoot someone coming out of corner in a FPS due to targetting issues. In FPS you move to avoid being shot at. In WoW you move to avoid being targetted. Arena play is very dependent on knowing which pillars to hide behind.

Now you still have the class imbalance issues, but it is not really that different from say the classes in Team Fortress, or that Counterstrike where buying a different gun adversely affects your role in that game. Now obviously you don't actually aim at someone in WoW, but that's about the only difference. Ranged combat is not unlike say Doom 2 with autoaiming on, minus the ability to shoot corners preemptively. To be fair, the inability to aim is a very significant difference, which is why WoW E-Sports never really took off no matter how much Blizzard try to market it. But you only have to look at the resources spent to see that WoW PvP is more FPS than RPG.

[Tessian]

That's all awesome Don... but that ends up disproving your point instead of helping it. FPS's don't have gear accumulation-- RPG's do. At best in an FPS you get to choose your weapon and equipment or some preset class. The imbalances you're talking about with mega-gear that people are wearing is something specific to RPGs, not FPS.

The best you could do in CounterStrike is buy armor and a good weapon but it doesn't even persist outside of the match, nor does it cause anywhere near the large imbalance you're talking about.

FIRST PERSON SHOOTER -- Are you in First Person mode in WoW? No. Are you aiming a weapon and shooting? Not in the way an FPS game does, no.

WoW is way more RPG than it is FPS. It may share elements of strategy that exist in FPS's too, but that's it.

[Don]

In Metal Gear Solid there is a first person view, and you can aim and shoot at people. You can even shoot other players in the online mode. Does that make it a FPS? Warcraft 3 claims to be RPG/RTS even though only 1 unit can be leveled up (the Hero) but apparently that didn't stop Blizzard from applying the RPG label to a game that is obviously a RTS.

What makes a game a RPG? The fact that you're leveling someone? Menu driven system? Plenty of games that are definitely not RPG have these elements as well if you insist on just focusing on a few narrow features to define a game.

[Tessian]

In Metal Gear Solid there is a first person view, and you can aim and shoot at people. You can even shoot other players in the online mode. Does that make it a FPS?

It means MGS has FPS elements to it, but that's not the overall game-- more like a mini game.

Warcraft 3 claims to be RPG/RTS even though only 1 unit can be leveled up (the Hero) but apparently that didn't stop Blizzard from applying the RPG label to a game that is obviously a RTS.

It's definitely an RTS; leveling a unit doesn't count as an RPG nor does adding a few items to be used by said units. It's very loosely RPG-ish, but these days having your RTS units be able to gain levels and bonuses through items is common place anymore.

What makes a game a RPG? The fact that you're leveling someone? Menu driven system? Plenty of games that are definitely not RPG have these elements as well if you insist on just focusing on a few narrow features to define a game.

You're not really going to make me define what a Role Playing Game is, are you? Good, cause I'm not wasting my time. Here, Wiki is your friend. I read the first few sentences and it seems close enough, although sadly they use WC3 as an example of other genres infusing RPG elements into it and I disagree there... it is a piece of RPG but it's a far cry from calling the game one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playi ... o_games%29

Never thought I'd have to teach Don the differences in game genres...

[SineSwiper]

Fixed the bugged post.

[Don]

So you used Wikipedia as your source and it actually agrees with what I say by saying Warcraft 3 has RPG elements.

In Korea the micropayment FPS look awful a lot like RPGs (got to level up your FPS characters to not have to go against ridiculous disadvantages) and I'd bet the game actually would look a lot like how PvP in WoW used to look like where the 'haves' have basically insurmountable advantage against the 'have not'. Virtua Fighter also supports leveling up, and as far as I know if you didn't spend enough money at the arcade leveling up your character, realistically you have no shot at beating someone with a decked out character unless there's a staggering difference in the skill level involved. Rival Schools has a build your character mode through its dating-sim like mini game, and a maxed out character basically kills any normal character in two Supers while taking damage comparable to chipping damage on an unblocked super. Is it still a fighting game when you've been beating on a guy for the last 3 minutes and not even do more damage than he kick you once, or is it some sort of RPG that happens to have a fighter game's moves?

At any rate the defintion you quote for RPG is so vague that anything can potentially be a RPG. I guess what you're saying is that if it says 'RPG' on the box then it has to be a RPG no matter how the game actually plays like, just like Virtua Fighter says 'fighter' on the box so even if you got to spend many hours leveling up your character to be on even footing, it's still a fighter? I suppose that's a very simplistic view of things, but when a RPG element actually eclipses any possibility of your skill at a fighting game to make up for it, I don't think you can say this is still a fighting game.

[Tessian]

A game can contain elements of other genres without being considered IN that genre. CoD4 multiplayer has leveling and equipment customization but it's still by and large an FPS. WoW has some strategy elements taken from FPS's, but it's still by and large an RPG. The wiki article says as much-- WC3 has RPG elements in it, but it's still considered an RTS because that's what the game IS.

I give up on you man, nobody else here has issues telling which genre a game is and you'd be the last one I'd expect to and I'm just not going to bother arguing more. Maybe you need to finally take a step back from over-analyzing games and just ENJOY them for a change.