Addicted to Too Human - Presentation (Graphics) & Story "can I have some more..."

XboxOZ360 writes:

"I've played the demo upwards of 10 hours. Not the full game. The demo! And as I explained in the first article of this series, it took time for me to come to appreciate the depth of combat and accept the camera.

The purpose of this series is to seek forgiveness for my earlier judgements in far greater detail. My failure was to judge a book by its cover, and by what misinformed others were saying, rather than by the contents within."

Part Two covers the Presentation/Graphics and Story where the author claims:

"I find it puzzling that anyone would expect Too Human to be a graphical showcase, when the key here is that the technical chops on offer enhance the gameplay and are well in excess of other titles I enjoy playing in similar genres such as Mass Effect, World of Warcraft and Diablo 2."

"I certainly won't be rushing it so I can claim I finished it in the same time-frame as AAA titles such as Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, Mass Effect and the original Diablo. I will be immersing myself in Too Human's world and if it took me one hour to squeeze that full 5% out of the demo, I can only assume it'll take close to twenty hours to complete the story and game once through (100%)."

[Superfragilistic]

Hmmmmmmm....

[XboxOZ360]

So what's holding you back on the bubbles then mate . . . hehehe . . I could do with one or two more at times . . My mother always said I was vaccinated with a gramophone needle when I was young (meaning you talk too much) Get with the program, give me bubbles heheh.

[XboxOZ360]

Most game could take longer - IF - gamers actually played the games they were given.

When a developer makes a game, do you think they seriously make it to be finished in 2-5-8 hours. When most play test them "RIGHT through and by actually doing all the things possible within a game, they usually take much longer than many say they do.

We're in a era of gamers where a game almost MUST be over withing half a day so they can make way for the "next big thing". Dedicating 10 - 15 - 20 hours of gameplay to one game seems almost alien to many gamers that fit into the generation of instant gratification.

I love nothing more than sinking hours upon hours into a game I like. I'm a racing and FPS nut, a solo player. And when I tell some I've sunk 300 hours into Forza 2 and over 450 into PGR3, they all say that I'm a bad gamer if I've taken that long to "beat" the game.

And that is where the issue lays. Many simply want to "beat" the game. Not enjoy it, to delve into all the intricacies the developer has spent 3-5 years working on. No, they want to annihilate it within the shortest period of time, simply to say 1) it's trash - they beat it is X number of hours, what a sucky game.

I had one guy brag he could Beat Black is (and get this) 2 hours 15 min and 45 secs, and of course, the game sucked.

I spent a good `13 hours in just one level of difficulty, went through it 3 times and opened up Black Ops and in total spent around 50 hours in the game. He on the other hand took it back to EB's within the day, got another game . . and guess what, Finished THAT one as well, yes, of course it sucked big time, and took that back and got - another.

Point is, many simply won't give Too Human a decent chance, or learn its intricacies enough to enjoy it. They want the same thing over and over again, yet complain that Developers are NOT doing innovative things.

So Silicon Knights do some innovating things that do require the gamer to use their heads, and do things differently, and guess what, The game sucks because - well - it's different and it requires more work.

You watch the proverbial phooh hit the fan when Far Cry: Africa hits the shelves. Many want a blood bath and monster filled psychopathic killer game like it's two predecessors, which they WILL NOT GET.

The developers have taken a different route, Not zombies, no monsters (unless you call a black market gun runner a monster, which to some he certainly is) and certainly no genetically enhances fighter who can see in the night through cat eyes and has heat vision.

He's a"normal" guy in the middle of a huge war in Africa. A new innovative way of looking at a game. Will the gamers like it, some will, many won't. It will sell, but it won't stay in 360's or PS3's for very long.

Same will be the case for Too Human - unfortunately. Because many will simply give it 10 = 30 mins and then decide, nah, it's junk, it's not worth the "time". Which will be sad really, as there's been almost 5 years ploughed into this game, and games like it.

While doing the research for art on this game, you can see the detail that has certainly gone into it. The development diaries are great. Detailing the Norse Mythology, which fo many will simply be lost on them, sadly, as the game does deserve a decent play through in order to really understand it.

That's my five cents worth, well - $5 worth in this case.

[Superfragilistic]

I might put 100hrs into some massive RPGs, but four times that into PGR3? OMFG! :O

[GarandShooter]

Oz, I played the demo for about and hour or so and am fairly indifferent to the game, maybe a rental when it comes out, but you said something that struck me as maybe being a small part of a greater truth.

'So Silicon Knights do some innovating things that do require the gamer to use their heads, and do things differently, and guess what, The game sucks because - well - it's different and it requires more work.'

Now, check this out, I'm going to replace a few words in your quote:

So Sony does some innovating things that do require the developer to use their heads, and do things differently, and guess what, The console sucks because - well - it's different and it requires more work.

What do you think? I'm sure if given enough thought, we could find many situations that this logic would apply to.

Based upon this insightful reasoning, I'll have to give this game another chance.

[XboxOZ360]

Yes, you could replace it with almost anything. I have nothing against the PS3 per-say, nor Sony. MS are not angels and do some real dumb-arsed stuff. All companies do, be that through their manufacturing, promotions or marketing.

But one thing the major console manufactures have in common atm is they are all trying to innovate and make changes in a market that is 'suppossidly' screaming for change. Yet when they make changes, or advance on their existing technology, the market (read gamers) start complaining that they have changed things and they do not like it.

Perfect example is Diablo 3. The long line of existing fans have signed petitions, screamed blue bloody murder and almost refused to buy the game when it is released. Why.

Because the developer CHANGED it from what it was when it last appeared almost a decade ago. Hello, time moves on, and audiences change. Any developer that makes a game in TODAY'S market for an audience that has really long gone is basically committing finacial suicide.

If on the other hand they look at the present market, see how it has changed, what games sell and sell in huge numbers. Observe the 'trends' in audience, then build their game to suit THAT audience, then it can be assured it will have a fighting chance of success.

Point is, ppl, do NOT like change - period. And when confronted with it, usually revolt. Even if that change was to bring about a new experience. Most simply do not even want to try and have that new experience, because it's based around their "emotions" . .and we are all run by our emotions.

And yes Super, 400 hours into PGR3 and I hate PGR4. Why spend that time in a game, any game, well simple, if you enjoy something, you have fun doing it. I constantly try to better my times or wee if I can achieve different things within the game/s. And take time doing so.

The number of ppl I've NOW heard that have played Black as an example say that they really enjoy it, that it's an excellent shooter, has great damage etc is quite high compared to when the game was released. Why, because they are giving it a chance and taking their time in doing so. Which is what the game was designed to be.

Ppl complained of the ending (as well as the ending in several games), but if they followed the storyline and also thegame to its logical conclusion, they would see it lead them straight to the NEXT game. Black is part of a Trilofgy, whether or not that trilogy sees the light of day is another thing, but they made the first game to fit in with the other two.

Too Human has many changes to its gameplay, so does Brothers In Arms: Hells Highway, you watch the backlash from that game. Mark my words the internet will be livid with forums alight across the world - why. Because Gearbox changed the way they do things with the controls.
change. most ppl hate it, but if we don't have change, we'd still be living in caves, and I like my modern comforst thank you very much. ;-)

[gaminoz]

I wonder if people will have the patience to find out all that you can do. I think games do need to be immediately satisfying to most to get them to stick with it...or they may lose them. I'm all for giving a game a good try, but with a huge amount released at the same time, that may not happen with most.

This game was fun just as a standard game but it didn't grab me enough to get me playing the demo again and again. Hopefully I'll get a copy of it when it is released and then maybe I'll give it a really good long play. I know I miss out a lot this way and often I think I'll get back to a game later and don't....there's just something newer to try all the time.

I hope that they go and make Eternal Darkness 2 next. I've been wanting that for years.

[Superfragilistic]

Yeah it's a double edged sword. I enjoy finding things out, but for many a proper tutorial and somewhere to practice moves (Soul Calibur like) would be awesome.

As for ED2, just keep your fingers crossed that Too Human sells 1m+ and we'll have a trilogy and ED2 to please us both. :)

[XboxOZ360]

I think you have hit the nail on the head in many ways there. With so many really good AAA titles coming out, many gamers simply want a 'taste' of each. They can ay they played it, and move onto the next one, etc etc. yet spend very little time realy exploring the game as the developer intended.

SO they (Developers) are caught in between a rock and a hard place. DO they innovate and create new IP and new physics and game play, controls etc which will require more work on the gamers behalf, or leave things as is and hope for the best.

DO they flesh out a story so it lasts longer, which gamers "seemingly" want, and suffer the possibility of many gamers simply NOT playing thegame through or doing it half arsed. Or, do they keep it to a smallnumber of hours, not innovate and simply churn them out.

They make the money as they get bought well enough. We onlyhave to look at games of movie tie-ins for crying out loud. Publishers don't give a rats arse as to what the game plays like, so long as it's around a few hoours long and comes out with the movie. WHo gives a sh8&^ if it's lousy, it'll still sell.

And that's actually quite true, and sad at the same time.

Developers like SN, BioWare, etc etc etc try doing things differently and suffer the backlash for even attempting it. But, if they left it simple, they'd get flogged for not being innovative . .

The trouble doesn't lay with the developer, it lays with the end users, you and I as gamers. DO we "really" want new IP and new innovation for "This-Gen" and beyond, or do we just want a quick-fix-game to waste several hours before the next one appears. ?

[darkmurder]

I really hope this game is worth it, for 10 years in development for it to be a poor game would be pretty bad, they'd start a new lawsuit on Epic probably! Ha! I reckon this game will be good, but nothing worth waiting 10 years for.

[Superfragilistic]

10yrs? Come on man. lol

[gaminoz]

I'd rather that game-makers take their time if a game isn't ready (right Alone in the Dark???). Nothing worse than a could-have-been game being released too early. On the other hand Alan Wake is taking FOREVER...he he.

[Superfragilistic]

WTF is with Alan Wake seriously? If it's not in the 2009 lineup, they should pull the plug on his life-supported coma! lol

As for 10yrs, what I mean was Too Human may have been a concept or had othe iterations over ten years, but it's current form has only been in development since around the launch of the 360 3 years ago. ;)