Too Human 1UP review C-

There you go. Discuss.

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3169393

:lol:... I've always enjoyed your Dyack vendetta. In any case, this really seems like this game is going to be a critical bomb. I wonder how sales will be.rragnaar

It's not really a vendetta, I have beef with the crappy demo, and I didn't think the final game is going to turn out well if they don't take the criticisms seriously, and it looks like they didn't, Dyack tried to call me out on numerous occasions, so I guess it's more like he has a vendetta against me.

Ugh.

Perhaps it needed another ten years in the oven?

...Dyack tried to call me out on numerous occasions, so I guess it's more like he has a vendetta against me.
EvilTaru

Ah... in any case, I knew there was some history there.

Not much to discuss. Too Human is probably decent/good at best and 1UP is trash.

I wasn't a huge fan of the demo, but I'm going to rent the game because it's like slowing to peer at a horrible car crash and Mr. Dyack is hilarious (I love the penthouse interview where the girls become increasingly frightened of his endless mouth).

And while I don't expect the game to be anything but mediocre, that's not the greatest review I've ever read. It's sloppy...not Gamespot Army of Two sloppy, but maybe Gamespot Bionic Command Rearmed sloppy.

Ugh.

Perhaps it needed another ten years in the oven?

SteelAttack

Even way back at E306 people were telling him how bad the combat was but he blamed it on UE3 and the framerate, maybe back then he can blame it on the pipeline and tools, but two years later the combat is still garbage. It's kind of a shame he didn't listen to people when those were honest criticisms. I think everybody wants to have a good game to play.

Not much to discuss. Too Human is probably decent/good at best and 1UP is trash.

UpInFlames

For what is worth the 1UP review seems spot-on from what I've played of the demo.

Not much to discuss. Too Human is probably decent/good at best and 1UP is trash.

UpInFlames

[QUOTE="SteelAttack"]

Ugh.

Perhaps it needed another ten years in the oven?

EvilTaru

Even way back at E306 people were telling him how bad the combat was but he blamed it on UE3 and the framerate, maybe back then he can blame it on the pipeline and tools, but two years later the combat is still garbage. It's kind of a shame he didn't listen to people when those were honest criticisms. I think everybody wants to have a good game to play.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]:lol:... I've always enjoyed your Dyack vendetta. In any case, this really seems like this game is going to be a critical bomb. I wonder how sales will be.EvilTaru

It's not really a vendetta, I have beef with the crappy demo, and I didn't think the final game is going to turn out well if they don't take the criticisms seriously, and it looks like they didn't, Dyack tried to call me out on numerous occasions, so I guess it's more like he has a vendetta against me.

lol, you're arguing with the devs now? I was not aware of this, funny stuff.

I'm half tempted to check it out, just because I simply can't fathom how something can be in development for nearly and decade and still suck. I have to admit that the demo grew on me. It's far from being a perfect game, and the camera is really, really janky, but you guys have to understand that I played the holy **** out of Phantasy Star Universe back in the day, so loot whoring is an inherent weakness of mine.

I still think the biggest disappointment based on what I've seen of the game is the removal of 4 player co-op (co-op can make even the most flawed games fun a lot of times). I'm just not sure that 2-person can carry the weight of everything. I WILL say that shooting those badass laser pistols was pretty damn awesome.

But bah, who am I kidding? This game was doomed as soon as the word "trilogy" came out. I haven't played a game from any planned trilogy that wasn't disappointing, and if a company like Bioware can disappoint me, Silicon Knights most definitely can. Speaking of which, a lot of the complaints levelled at Too Human seem to be ones glossed over for Mass Effect -- crappy controls? Check. Shoddy framerate and a host of other annoyances? Si, Senor. Over ambitious, yet underachieving? Righto.

Just as much as I'm sure Too Human isn't perfect, I'm also sure that sometimes a game comes along that people just want to take a dump on. If this weren't the case, Mass Effect would've gotten the 7's and 8's it deserved instead of the near-unanimous praise.

Tha's two bad reviews so far... MGS publihed this right? You'd think they'd have the ability to tell Silicon Knights where they could have spruced the game up to get it into shape. That's what a good publisher will do (and they've certainly done it before).aspro73

Inbetween NG2, Mass Effect and Too Human, it doesn't seem like the current management of MS has a problem with releasing games that are unfinished, unpolished or even broken.

I might be one of the only people that expected this game to be well recieved just because of the fact that it has been in development for so long. I enjoyed the demo but I'll hold off on getting it for now. Not too certain if the game warrants the $60 price tag. princesszelda

I was bored by the demo, but none of the reviews have indicated that the demo was unrepresentative of the final game, so I don't see why you'd avoid the game is you enjoyed the demo.

[QUOTE="SteelAttack"]

Ugh.

Perhaps it needed another ten years in the oven?

EvilTaru

Even way back at E306 people were telling him how bad the combat was but he blamed it on UE3 and the framerate, maybe back then he can blame it on the pipeline and tools, but two years later the combat is still garbage. It's kind of a shame he didn't listen to people when those were honest criticisms. I think everybody wants to have a good game to play.

He could have just lifted the gameplay from Legend of Zelda again. The last time he did that it was the beginning of a series with a strong cult following.

I might be one of the only people that expected this game to be well recieved just because of the fact that it has been in development for so long. princesszelda

That's more of an ominous sign that a good one. It just means that the developer cannot settle on a concept or can't quite get it right.

But bah, who am I kidding? This game was doomed as soon as the word "trilogy" came out. I haven't played a game from any planned trilogy that wasn't disappointing, and if a company like Bioware can disappoint me, Silicon Knights most definitely can. Speaking of which, a lot of the complaints levelled at Too Human seem to be ones glossed over for Mass Effect -- crappy controls? Check. Shoddy framerate and a host of other annoyances? Si, Senor. Over ambitious, yet underachieving? Righto.

Just as much as I'm sure Too Human isn't perfect, I'm also sure that sometimes a game comes along that people just want to take a dump on. If this weren't the case, Mass Effect would've gotten the 7's and 8's it deserved instead of the near-unanimous praise.

Shame-usBlackley

So true. I think everyone wanted to love Mass Effect so they overlooked its flaws, and everyone wants to hate Too Human so they magnify its flaws - even though they seem to contain very similar flaws. I think Mass Effect and Too Human need a little more work, but MS is releasing them anyway. I think NG2 needed a few months of polishing too. MS has certainly started to worry more about what quarter a game releases in rather than how ready it is for release. Makes me worry a bit about Gears 2.

[QUOTE="princesszelda"]I might be one of the only people that expected this game to be well recieved just because of the fact that it has been in development for so long. I enjoyed the demo but I'll hold off on getting it for now. Not too certain if the game warrants the $60 price tag. CarnageHeart

I was bored by the demo, but none of the reviews have indicated that the demo was unrepresentative of the final game, so I don't see why you'd avoid the game is you enjoyed the demo.

I guess thats what my problem is. I did enjoy the demo because I thought the combat was different and for the most part fun. Then again I'm not sure if that fun is going to wear off since there seems to be many flaws with the game. Don't get me wrong, I'm going to get the game....just not right now. It certainly won't hurt my purse to hold off on it.

Gamespot review is up. Doesn't look to great. princesszelda

Gamespot review is up. Doesn't look to great. princesszelda

5.5 isn't good... but then again they very recently gave Strong Bad a 5.0, Eden a 7.0, and Bionic Commando a 7.5, so I don't know what to think. Definitely needs more info from other sources, but I think GI gave it an even lower score so 1UP's C- is seemingly the best score it got so far.

Gamespot review is up. Doesn't look to great. princesszelda

Am I missing something here? I can't seem to find the written review nor the critic score although I do see the GS score.

[QUOTE="princesszelda"]Gamespot review is up. Doesn't look to great. argianas

5.5 isn't good... but then again they very recently gave Strong Bad a 5.0, Eden a 7.0, and Bionic Commando a 7.5, so I don't know what to think. Definitely needs more info from other sources, but I think GI gave it an even lower score so 1UP's C- is seemingly the best score it got so far.

Nah IGN gave it a 7.9

[QUOTE="princesszelda"]Gamespot review is up. Doesn't look to great. argianas

5.5 isn't good... but then again they very recently gave Strong Bad a 5.0, Eden a 7.0, and Bionic Commando a 7.5, so I don't know what to think. Definitely needs more info from other sources, but I think GI gave it an even lower score so 1UP's C- is seemingly the best score it got so far.

Yeah I'm not too sure what to think either. I don't want to get caught up in the numbers game but after reading these reviews I haven't really come across many positives. I'm interested in playing it but as I said before I definitely don't want to spend $60 on it.

[QUOTE="princesszelda"]Gamespot review is up. Doesn't look to great. BladesOfAthena

Am I missing something here? I can't seem to find the written review nor the critic score although I do see the GS score.

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

[QUOTE="princesszelda"]Gamespot review is up. Doesn't look to great. Teufelhuhn

Am I missing something here? I can't seem to find the written review nor the critic score although I do see the GS score.

Ah ok. Thanks.:) Reading it now.

[QUOTE="argianas"]

[QUOTE="princesszelda"]Gamespot review is up. Doesn't look to great. Teufelhuhn

5.5 isn't good... but then again they very recently gave Strong Bad a 5.0, Eden a 7.0, and Bionic Commando a 7.5, so I don't know what to think. Definitely needs more info from other sources, but I think GI gave it an even lower score so 1UP's C- is seemingly the best score it got so far.

Nah IGN gave it a 7.9

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"][QUOTE="SteelAttack"]

Ugh.

Perhaps it needed another ten years in the oven?

MarcusAntonius

Even way back at E306 people were telling him how bad the combat was but he blamed it on UE3 and the framerate, maybe back then he can blame it on the pipeline and tools, but two years later the combat is still garbage. It's kind of a shame he didn't listen to people when those were honest criticisms. I think everybody wants to have a good game to play.

He could have just lifted the gameplay from Legend of Zelda again. The last time he did that it was the beginning of a series with a strong cult following.

I suppose they could, they would probably have more success with a simpler system. They tried to rip off DMC but they didn't know how to do an action game properly. One thing though, to do a Zelda you have to have some decent boss fights and I'm not sure if they can pull that off.

[QUOTE="princesszelda"]Gamespot review is up. Doesn't look to great. argianas

5.5 isn't good... but then again they very recently gave Strong Bad a 5.0, Eden a 7.0, and Bionic Commando a 7.5, so I don't know what to think. Definitely needs more info from other sources, but I think GI gave it an even lower score so 1UP's C- is seemingly the best score it got so far.

7.0 for Eden might be harsh but 5.5 for TH is a freakin BOMBA.

Just read in the Gamespot review that when you die, you get sent back to a checkpoint, but all the damage you've dealt to your enemies remains. **** that! It's Bioshock all over again, man!

WHHHHHHHYYYYYYY do developers think this is a good idea?:|

And while I hate that design choice to the point where I consider it game-breaking, it's funny that Bioshock's reviews almost never mentioned that as a negative, but they are with Too Human. Don't get me wrong, I think that design conceit is the most broken thing introduced to gaming in the last twenty years, but it's odd that it was totally awesome when Bioshock did it, and now it sucks with Too Human. There are reviewers just tripping all over their own incosistent stances with this game. Oh well, I guess it's better to be right late than never. Still, this guarantees that I'll not be buying the game -- it's a deal-breaker. I'm not going to support any company making games that want to coddle the audience. Challenge me, or don't bother making the ******* thing.

Just read this from the Gamespot review that when you die, you get sent back to a checkpoint, but all the damage you've dealt to your enemies remains. **** that! It's Bioshock all over again, man!

WHHHHHHHYYYYYYY do developers think this is a good idea?

And while I hate that implementation to the point where I consider it game-breaking, it's funny that Bioshock's reviews almost never mentioned that as a negative, but they are with Too Human. Don't get me wrong, I think that design conceit is the most broken thing introduced in gaming for the last twenty years, but it's odd that it was totally awesome when Bioshock did it, and now it sucks with Too Human. Oh well, I guess better right late than never. Still, this guarantees that I'll not be buying the game -- it's a deal-breaker.

Shame-usBlackley

Yeah but in Bioshock you came back in cool looking vita chambers, for me the deal had long been broken before hearing about this flaw, and it all started when I realized that the analog controlled gameplay makes Jet Li's Rise to Honor look genius.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Just read this from the Gamespot review that when you die, you get sent back to a checkpoint, but all the damage you've dealt to your enemies remains. **** that! It's Bioshock all over again, man!

WHHHHHHHYYYYYYY do developers think this is a good idea?

And while I hate that implementation to the point where I consider it game-breaking, it's funny that Bioshock's reviews almost never mentioned that as a negative, but they are with Too Human. Don't get me wrong, I think that design conceit is the most broken thing introduced in gaming for the last twenty years, but it's odd that it was totally awesome when Bioshock did it, and now it sucks with Too Human. Oh well, I guess better right late than never. Still, this guarantees that I'll not be buying the game -- it's a deal-breaker.

HiResDes

Yeah but in Bioshock you came back in cool looking vita chambers, for me the deal had long been broken before hearing about this flaw, and it all started when I realized that the analog controlled gameplay makes Jet Li's Rise to Honor look genius.

Yeah, Bioshock's sense of immersion was off the charts. It's too bad I played it before the patch went up, because the "we don't want to challenge your delicate sensibilities" design choice was a huge immersion-breaker.

I mean, I can only think of one game where cheating death made sense in recent years, and that's Braid. In a shooter that is supposed to be all about tension and claustrophobic fear, it kills the mood.

Just read in the Gamespot review that when you die, you get sent back to a checkpoint, but all the damage you've dealt to your enemies remains. **** that! It's Bioshock all over again, man!

WHHHHHHHYYYYYYY do developers think this is a good idea?:|

And while I hate that design choice to the point where I consider it game-breaking, it's funny that Bioshock's reviews almost never mentioned that as a negative, but they are with Too Human. Don't get me wrong, I think that design conceit is the most broken thing introduced to gaming in the last twenty years, but it's odd that it was totally awesome when Bioshock did it, and now it sucks with Too Human. There are reviewers just tripping all over their own incosistent stances with this game. Oh well, I guess it's better to be right late than never. Still, this guarantees that I'll not be buying the game -- it's a deal-breaker. I'm not going to support any company making games that want to coddle the audience. Challenge me, or don't bother making the ******* thing.

Shame-usBlackley

*Shrugs* In Bioshock, it was possible to bypass the vita-chambers (I did). One could just load up one's last save.

Anyway, the flaws laid out in Too Human are horrendously bad (dying of poisoning unless a item random spawns unless you or your buddy is a bioengineer).

Silicon Knights are wonderful storytellers (usually) but they really, really need to hire a competent game designer.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Just read in the Gamespot review that when you die, you get sent back to a checkpoint, but all the damage you've dealt to your enemies remains. **** that! It's Bioshock all over again, man!

WHHHHHHHYYYYYYY do developers think this is a good idea?:|

And while I hate that design choice to the point where I consider it game-breaking, it's funny that Bioshock's reviews almost never mentioned that as a negative, but they are with Too Human. Don't get me wrong, I think that design conceit is the most broken thing introduced to gaming in the last twenty years, but it's odd that it was totally awesome when Bioshock did it, and now it sucks with Too Human. There are reviewers just tripping all over their own incosistent stances with this game. Oh well, I guess it's better to be right late than never. Still, this guarantees that I'll not be buying the game -- it's a deal-breaker. I'm not going to support any company making games that want to coddle the audience. Challenge me, or don't bother making the ******* thing.

CarnageHeart

*Shrugs* In Bioshock, it was possible to bypass the vita-chambers (I did). One could just load up one's last save.

Anyway, the flaws laid out in Too Human are horrendously bad (dying of poisoning unless a item random spawns unless you or your buddy is a bioengineer).

Silicon Knights are wonderful storytellers (usually) but they really, really need to hire a competent game designer.

Yes, but that's the player working around the game instead of good design negating the necessity for it. I could reboot my 360 every time I died in Too Human too, but that wouldn't make the design choice any less stupid.

I felt like I could probably get around the rest of the flaws in Too Human, but that's one I simply can't do. That's the laziest, most milquetoast bit of design I've ever seen, and all the complaints about games that want to please everyone by not challenging anyone need look no further than that choice for what NOT to do in their games.

EDIT: I get the feeling that if games with this design choice were cars, they'd have a pink hood, a black door, a blue door, a red trunk, and a rainbow-hued interior, just so everyone has their favorite color represented. What I want, is more ******* Henry Ford -- "You can have any color as long as it's BLACK!! Don't like it? TOO BAD!" You know -- BALLS. Conviction. Confidence. That's what I want in my games. I know these cost a lot to make, and if there's ever been a game that proves they're time consuming to produce, Too Human is it, but man, I just don't dig that ****. Not in the least.