jaundicejuice
Member
CcrooK said:
In the words of Mr. Dyack himself:
Sadly this won't be the case. The release of this game won't be the end of this, merely the beginning.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Denis Dyack in 1up yours. NeoGAF is "hurting society," justifies having it shut down
- Thread starter Rlan
- Start date
- Status
In the words of Mr. Dyack himself:
Sadly this won't be the case. The release of this game won't be the end of this, merely the beginning.
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
And the fact is that you can often tell a great about a game from actual gameplay footage, especially if you've been playing games for any length of time. We've seen and read plenty about Too Human. It looks like a niche product treading no new ground: tired beat-em-up gameplay, non-existent level design, a laughable modernize-the-mythology fanfic story, and a Sims Fashion Pack for Boyz - Finally, myKittonwy said:
Denis is right that this game is getting attention because of the baggage. On its own merits, it's wildly unappealing to the vast majority of consumers and would be no more than a tiny blip on the radar.
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8793635&publicUserId=4551247
The Transformative Magic of Too Human's Denis Dyack
Snippet: Dyack's been reading books about technology and the creation of culture. He has attended a business symposium. Now he hopes to forge from the insights of these independent sources a unified theory that will explain everything from Too Human's somewhat negative press to...well, Too Human's somewhat negative press.
The Transformative Magic of Too Human's Denis Dyack
Snippet: Dyack's been reading books about technology and the creation of culture. He has attended a business symposium. Now he hopes to forge from the insights of these independent sources a unified theory that will explain everything from Too Human's somewhat negative press to...well, Too Human's somewhat negative press.
WasabiKing
Member
Whomever this PR person is will probably not be able to work in this industry again. I don't care if he's your boss, you've got to yank the reins when comments could quite possibly hurt your product. That or your job must be so kush that you get paid for not doing shit, and if so, kudos to you.
Mr. Dyack,
I just listened to the podcast for a second time and I found myself agreeing with most of what you said. One thing I would like you to keep your word on is when you mention you want us (the player) to judge the game solely on our experience playing it. How fair is it to us, the consumer/gamer/target of your product if by the time we get to "judge" the game, we are already out $60+ (with much higher prices in other parts of the world) and are basically stuck with the game regardless of weather we enjoy the end product or not. I implore you to push Microsoft to publish a demo. I can't speak for everyone on GAF, but I definitely say that most of us on this forum (the core audience that this game is targeted towards) just want a good game. We don't care about long winded speeches about Scientism (as interesting as the phenomenon may be) or societal effects of Internet boards, we care about playing good games. That is why we come to this forum, to discuss games that we play. For you, the end game is to release your product and get it in as many hands as possible, because that will lead to most profits for your company and in turn, to you. You have constantly stated that Too Human is your greatest achievement. Most of us do not want to risk our hard earned money on a game that may or may not be entertaining or worth our time (I'm not saying TH is or isn't here, just a general statement), so we are oftentimes forced to base our opinion of a game we may purchase on the previews and writing of the many gaming sites which already have access to your game. But these are the very sites which you have decried for the content of said previews.
I feel that if you truly want Too Human to be judged on it's own merits, a Demo showcasing the strengths of the game will be the only way. If we, the consumer don't get the option to sample the game before our possible purchase, I fear Too Human will forever be a game linked to Internet posts, Blog Preview/Reviews and Controversy. I'm sure that isn't what you want to happen, and if it truly is the game you say it is, then we don't want that to happen either.
We just want good games.
I just listened to the podcast for a second time and I found myself agreeing with most of what you said. One thing I would like you to keep your word on is when you mention you want us (the player) to judge the game solely on our experience playing it. How fair is it to us, the consumer/gamer/target of your product if by the time we get to "judge" the game, we are already out $60+ (with much higher prices in other parts of the world) and are basically stuck with the game regardless of weather we enjoy the end product or not. I implore you to push Microsoft to publish a demo. I can't speak for everyone on GAF, but I definitely say that most of us on this forum (the core audience that this game is targeted towards) just want a good game. We don't care about long winded speeches about Scientism (as interesting as the phenomenon may be) or societal effects of Internet boards, we care about playing good games. That is why we come to this forum, to discuss games that we play. For you, the end game is to release your product and get it in as many hands as possible, because that will lead to most profits for your company and in turn, to you. You have constantly stated that Too Human is your greatest achievement. Most of us do not want to risk our hard earned money on a game that may or may not be entertaining or worth our time (I'm not saying TH is or isn't here, just a general statement), so we are oftentimes forced to base our opinion of a game we may purchase on the previews and writing of the many gaming sites which already have access to your game. But these are the very sites which you have decried for the content of said previews.
I feel that if you truly want Too Human to be judged on it's own merits, a Demo showcasing the strengths of the game will be the only way. If we, the consumer don't get the option to sample the game before our possible purchase, I fear Too Human will forever be a game linked to Internet posts, Blog Preview/Reviews and Controversy. I'm sure that isn't what you want to happen, and if it truly is the game you say it is, then we don't want that to happen either.
We just want good games.
His most valid point was about review scores. What really s the significant difference that makes a game 7.5 instead of 7.8?
I do disagree with his complaints on message board behavior. In particular, the "owned by dyack" guy. If a person chooses to put their self out there and make a claim, then he or she should be ready to face the consequences. This applies to forums and real life. I made a thread about how bad the classic controller is, and was made fun of (only a little), but it wasn't that serious because this is a GAMING FORUM. maybe I have thick skin since I used to post at gamefaqs, but i assume that most trolls are doing because they can retain some anonymity while making outrageous claims and illogical arguments. I think the point is to not take video game forums too seriously.
GAF is one of the more passionate forums I regularly go to, but I believe that the anonymity also helps to release people from inhibitions they may have in real life. this works both positively and negatively.
I do disagree with his complaints on message board behavior. In particular, the "owned by dyack" guy. If a person chooses to put their self out there and make a claim, then he or she should be ready to face the consequences. This applies to forums and real life. I made a thread about how bad the classic controller is, and was made fun of (only a little), but it wasn't that serious because this is a GAMING FORUM. maybe I have thick skin since I used to post at gamefaqs, but i assume that most trolls are doing because they can retain some anonymity while making outrageous claims and illogical arguments. I think the point is to not take video game forums too seriously.
GAF is one of the more passionate forums I regularly go to, but I believe that the anonymity also helps to release people from inhibitions they may have in real life. this works both positively and negatively.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
That was far far less painful to listen through than i expected. I enjoyed the discussion quite a bit. It was hard to associate denis's lofty visions of the future and communication with a small place like Neogaf on the ocean that is the internet, but then again, i havent given it as mush thought as him. Great podcast.
FartOfWar said:
The fact that he is reading all these books which tricks some people into thinking that makes him more intelligent reminds of this guy at work. He's a vegetarian, but really out of shape. One of my buds at work asked my how a vegetarian could be so out of shape. My answer was, "Dude. Donuts aren't meat."
Some books are junk food for the mind.
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
Kittonwy did not stop posting for months. Dyack is a joke. Tags serious business.
DeformedOnion
Neo Member
h3ro said:
Thank you for putting into words what I couldn't.
darkressurection
Banned
Great stuff Shawn, I also really wish you would have been on the podcast to call him on his bullshit.FartOfWar said:
Guy Legend
Member
I listened to the podcast late last night and I agree with much of what Dyack said. I agree fully with the notion that corporations and businesses need to be ethical. He picked on Neogaf quite a bit and while I think most of us come here just to have fun, talk about games, system wars, etc., the site has be to careful not to go too far. Its important to remain responsible. There are a good number of times where renaming a thread's title or giving a user a tag he/she can't change themselves becomes irresponsible.
I'm glad Dyack directly addressed NeoGAF, since there are probably some who wouldn't. However, I thought the discussion at times became too abstract and delved a little too much into other trades. A little more concise discussion would have been appreciated, though I know some of the examples from other parts of society have to discussed to put the discussion in context and provide historical/accurate basis.
Previews should never be reviews and people (posters) in general need to be a little more responsible when posting about games that aren't out. It's perfectly valid to express one's opinion at any time (whether that be praise or disdain), but going beyond that is irresponsible.
Some good points of discussion in general came from this interview that I agree with that applies to many of our overall interactions of life. Perhaps it's taking things too seriously by going into video game message boards. It's a place to have fun. And "credible" gaming sites that are supposed sources of news should remember that as well.
I'm glad Dyack directly addressed NeoGAF, since there are probably some who wouldn't. However, I thought the discussion at times became too abstract and delved a little too much into other trades. A little more concise discussion would have been appreciated, though I know some of the examples from other parts of society have to discussed to put the discussion in context and provide historical/accurate basis.
Previews should never be reviews and people (posters) in general need to be a little more responsible when posting about games that aren't out. It's perfectly valid to express one's opinion at any time (whether that be praise or disdain), but going beyond that is irresponsible.
Some good points of discussion in general came from this interview that I agree with that applies to many of our overall interactions of life. Perhaps it's taking things too seriously by going into video game message boards. It's a place to have fun. And "credible" gaming sites that are supposed sources of news should remember that as well.
Guy Legend
Member
Draft said:
I love it when it's called "The NeoGAF" as well....:lol
Andronicus
Banned
Death_Born said:
who exactly is everyone? is the game Out?
TheDarkKnight774
Member
FartOfWar said:
Good read. I'll also echo i wish you were in the interview. Will this be a topic that you'll be covering on GFW?
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
HeM3wThr33 said:
. Actually he lied quite a bit in the podcast and no one from GAF to call him out on his BS. The way he twisted what the for or against thread was all about is incredible. He should be ashamed of himself and so should 1up because I know many there know the whole story as they noticed when his philosophical comparisons were out of place. Garnett had a clue but didn't have the confidence to make a respectable argument.
This is typical of someone who loses every argument he has and is continually pushed. They change their argument so much to make it so that in the end they cannot lose. Hes done this twice now. Once in the for or against thread and now on this podcast. In other words:
Too Human - Scores don't matter because they are meaningless. sure but without some sort of quantifier for the quality of the game it can never be judged without playing the game, which will have to be your personal judgment.
Its a win win for him. The only way to know if the game is great is if I play the whole thing and If I think the game is shit then I was influenced by the internet bullies of society.
Seriously Dyack, some of the points you made in the podcast were good only because they came from very smart people. Twisting their theories and ideas to damage control your game is ridiculous and insane.
GhaleonQ
Member
On Shawn's:
1 (Metacritic groupthink). I think that it's fair to set aside the notion that a scored review is less helpful than traditional criticism, since that's been argued to death and isn't the thrust of his argument. That is, "Compiling scored reviews lends unearned importance to the resulting average." Shawn's on point saying that this is groupthink, at most. Scientism refers to statisticians hammering observations into their own PREEXISTING framework, when the analysis should follow the observations. Did Metacritic exist without a video game section before video game magazines and websites scored reviews, forcing these reviewers to add numbers for their results to be taken seriously? Did it standardize the way reviewers issue scores? Of course not. We can trace the lineage back to the first magazine that became popular because they added something more than the review text, and further back to those reviewing appliances, films, meals, et cetera. The framework existed before the method that made it efficient. Highways came after the automobile. In other words, Metacritic and Game Rankings are tools, and useful ones at that.
This also ignores the facts that most people have similar criteria for scoring games, anyway (the limit being whatever individual experience a person had with a game, as mentioned before in reference to Metal Gear Solid 4, and a person's indiscernible likes and dislikes) and that each point of data has a fricking direct link to it, leaving each one highly open to scrutiny, which scientism (Denmark is the happiest country in the world!) does not allow the public to do.
2 (fora have ethical boundaries and operating within them is beneficial, as it is for businesses). While we could detail the many, many ways in which businesses and public fora are not alike and why such arguments should be immediately dismissed, it is legitimate to examine whether watercooler talk is having an effect on business and if it should then have obligations. Since Dyack didn't verify that Electronic Gaming Monthly, Gamespy, and Edge reviewers are affected by negative talk around NeoGAF (never mind those at Gamestop making the marketing decisions, who probably have the greatest ability to sabotage his game) and since NeoGAF is not responsible for beginning the negativity (that would be E.G.M./Ziff-Davis, who have given him far more opportunities than necessary to refute the charges only to have him sabotage his company repeatedly), NeoGAF has no substantive moral obligation. The business analogy is as ludicrous as suggesting that I should get residuals from the Kurosawa and Bresson estates for including "To Live" and "Diary Of A Country Priest" on my Facebook page.
3. Shawn's remaining arguments are succinct and pointed, and his opinion holds far greater weight than my agreement, anyway.
1 (Metacritic groupthink). I think that it's fair to set aside the notion that a scored review is less helpful than traditional criticism, since that's been argued to death and isn't the thrust of his argument. That is, "Compiling scored reviews lends unearned importance to the resulting average." Shawn's on point saying that this is groupthink, at most. Scientism refers to statisticians hammering observations into their own PREEXISTING framework, when the analysis should follow the observations. Did Metacritic exist without a video game section before video game magazines and websites scored reviews, forcing these reviewers to add numbers for their results to be taken seriously? Did it standardize the way reviewers issue scores? Of course not. We can trace the lineage back to the first magazine that became popular because they added something more than the review text, and further back to those reviewing appliances, films, meals, et cetera. The framework existed before the method that made it efficient. Highways came after the automobile. In other words, Metacritic and Game Rankings are tools, and useful ones at that.
This also ignores the facts that most people have similar criteria for scoring games, anyway (the limit being whatever individual experience a person had with a game, as mentioned before in reference to Metal Gear Solid 4, and a person's indiscernible likes and dislikes) and that each point of data has a fricking direct link to it, leaving each one highly open to scrutiny, which scientism (Denmark is the happiest country in the world!) does not allow the public to do.
2 (fora have ethical boundaries and operating within them is beneficial, as it is for businesses). While we could detail the many, many ways in which businesses and public fora are not alike and why such arguments should be immediately dismissed, it is legitimate to examine whether watercooler talk is having an effect on business and if it should then have obligations. Since Dyack didn't verify that Electronic Gaming Monthly, Gamespy, and Edge reviewers are affected by negative talk around NeoGAF (never mind those at Gamestop making the marketing decisions, who probably have the greatest ability to sabotage his game) and since NeoGAF is not responsible for beginning the negativity (that would be E.G.M./Ziff-Davis, who have given him far more opportunities than necessary to refute the charges only to have him sabotage his company repeatedly), NeoGAF has no substantive moral obligation. The business analogy is as ludicrous as suggesting that I should get residuals from the Kurosawa and Bresson estates for including "To Live" and "Diary Of A Country Priest" on my Facebook page.
3. Shawn's remaining arguments are succinct and pointed, and his opinion holds far greater weight than my agreement, anyway.
Who is this guy again? And I mean, really... GAF is hurting society? I wasn't aware that internet communities could hurt society.
Well, other than all those Chans. *shudders*
Ah well, in as much as GAF loves its hatred 'n such, this is still one of the best communities 'round. Dyack can go gobble a cock.
Well, other than all those Chans. *shudders*
Ah well, in as much as GAF loves its hatred 'n such, this is still one of the best communities 'round. Dyack can go gobble a cock.
Pretty clear to me that Dyack's ultimate goal here is to keep himself and his game in the consciousness of gamers so they'll buy the thing just to find out if he's a goofball or not.
Gamers buy stuff for reasons like this because so many of them have disposable income committed to a game a week regardless of the game's quality. By calling everyone on GAF out, he gets a shot at selling more games and who knows how much his publisher is committing to the marketing? Maybe he needs whatever interest he can get just to make some people pony up their dough?
It's certainly the Derek Smart method of game marketing.
Gamers buy stuff for reasons like this because so many of them have disposable income committed to a game a week regardless of the game's quality. By calling everyone on GAF out, he gets a shot at selling more games and who knows how much his publisher is committing to the marketing? Maybe he needs whatever interest he can get just to make some people pony up their dough?
It's certainly the Derek Smart method of game marketing.
DjangoReinhardt said:
He should be THANKING GAF for giving him so much attention instead of this "OH GAF BAD THINGZ R GOIN HAPPEN U HURTIN SOCIETY", where's teh gratitude? When I saw the 1UP show, I was just shocked at how Shane was just framing his questions to basically help Dyack push his game, I don't understand why they would refrain from being critical when for other games even before release they have tried to examine things more critically.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Althane said:
No to be a sensitive PC douche (which, I suppose, makes me a sensitive PC douche), but isn't telling someone to "gobble a cock" basically playing into exactly what he's saying?
Broseybrose
Member
great insight shawn, i knew this guy was doing damage control as soon as he posted the challenge on gaf. put up or shut up = hype up and buy up.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Althane said:Meh, how'm I hurting society by telling someone to do that?
I mean, really. That's like... grade school level insult. Not even high school.
Edit: And I'm not sure that that'd make you a sensitive PC douche.
Hah, I suppose by his definition, if someone made an animated gif of him performing said act, that's probably crossing the line.
Of course, I'm coming off from playing Live for the last few days where "fag" and "nigger" are still common insults (probably sucks to be a gay black man playing online these days), so that's probably heightened my PC-ness. :lol
Joseph Merrick
Member
I don't know, dood. You're not going to get the right feeling from a demo of a hack and slash/action rpg like this. It's either going to use the very beginning of the game which won't give you a good look into different skills and 'the real' way you'll be playing the game, or they'll put you directly into maybe somewhere in the middle of the game and give you a random selection of skills and character improvements-- regardless a demo won't give a good sample of the scope and feel of a game like this.h3ro said:
We need less developers like Dyack in my opinion. He needs to man the fuck up and take criticism of his game either constructively or on the chin, like every other developer does.
Reading books and giving it intellectual and philosophical garb doesn't somehow better his underlying main point at the GAF. That somehow by voicing our opinions, and having freedom of speech (along with a bit of light hearted humour), if it's in someway negative to a game or it's developer, we are "hurting society" as such, deserve threats like the one's he has thrown out, however innocently.
It's just not on. Also, people seem to forget that this isn't the first time he's had a stupid and almost vengeful reaction to criticism. He did a similar thing at the games first E3 showing, where he blasted game journalists for writing damning impressions of the game, stating they shouldn't pass judgement because it was early days. While they shouldn't pass final judgement (no one did) they are allowed to state their fucking opinions, which is the whole point of an early preview or demo. Don't want that, don't release a shit demo for people to play.
Also, I love how he kisses 1UP's ass because they didn't make any damning comments about his game in their preview. Or make any judgements. I'm sorry, but that's part of the point of a preview. We want to know how a game is turning out, whether it looks to be good or bad, we don;t just want to know what's in it or what it's about. There's plenty of info on that. We want impressions beyond that. And yes Dyack, sometimes impressions can be negative. And yes Dyack, sometimes certain games warrant that negativity.
It's nothing specifically against him, but the game itself. Unfortunately, due to his ridiculously immature outbursts throughout recent times, I fear many journalists will now view the game beyond the game, and let politics and Dyack's musings have an affecting impact on how the game is viewed, for better or for worse.
Reading books and giving it intellectual and philosophical garb doesn't somehow better his underlying main point at the GAF. That somehow by voicing our opinions, and having freedom of speech (along with a bit of light hearted humour), if it's in someway negative to a game or it's developer, we are "hurting society" as such, deserve threats like the one's he has thrown out, however innocently.
It's just not on. Also, people seem to forget that this isn't the first time he's had a stupid and almost vengeful reaction to criticism. He did a similar thing at the games first E3 showing, where he blasted game journalists for writing damning impressions of the game, stating they shouldn't pass judgement because it was early days. While they shouldn't pass final judgement (no one did) they are allowed to state their fucking opinions, which is the whole point of an early preview or demo. Don't want that, don't release a shit demo for people to play.
Also, I love how he kisses 1UP's ass because they didn't make any damning comments about his game in their preview. Or make any judgements. I'm sorry, but that's part of the point of a preview. We want to know how a game is turning out, whether it looks to be good or bad, we don;t just want to know what's in it or what it's about. There's plenty of info on that. We want impressions beyond that. And yes Dyack, sometimes impressions can be negative. And yes Dyack, sometimes certain games warrant that negativity.
It's nothing specifically against him, but the game itself. Unfortunately, due to his ridiculously immature outbursts throughout recent times, I fear many journalists will now view the game beyond the game, and let politics and Dyack's musings have an affecting impact on how the game is viewed, for better or for worse.
Joseph Merrick
Member
btw. guys I'm pretty sure PC means Personal Computer on this part of the site. please stop misusing this wonderful short
firehawk12 said:
Ah, see, my favorite "insult" from online is calling someone a mexican jew lizard. (PA references!)
Anyways, I try to also avoid the overly common insults. I mean, fag and nigger are overused so much that they've really become useless. When's the last time you've heard someone ACTUALLY say "Damnation", or, "Bloody hell", or even "*censored due to the brain-corroding evilness of these curses*"?
I mean, kids these days (bah, forget that I'm young will yah?) just plain don't know how to curse, they just choose the words that'd get their asses kicked at school and yell them online. It's really kinda pathetic.
Anyways, off topic!
I'm still wondering how an internet community can hurt society. Outside of the Chans. >_<;;
Whipped Spartan said:
Then he shouldn't show his game until it's ready to be judged, but then we're only one month away from the release date.
It's just a bad way to respond to criticism, the whole "you haven't played the final game" argument is just lame because people don't have to play the final game, because they don't have to buy the final game upon release if they don't feel like it.
Did Naughty Dog resort to that kind of bullshit when people criticized the shooting mechanics after they showed the game at E3 and various events? No, they went and took the criticisms seriously and IMPROVED THEIR GAME, resulting in a polished product and a great game for the PS3, a much improved shooting mechanics that will stay with the game and benefit the series in the long run. Did Insomniac do the whole "for or against" bullshit when the game's visuals got criticized after a few screenshots came out? No, they went and explained that they just implemented the shadowing system and they will continue to work on making the game prettier, if I was a game director (granted I have no interest in being a game director or being in the game industry at the present time), I would be feverishly trying to address any concerns and polish my shit up during this final stretch instead of trying to use 1UP Yours as a vehicle to attack GAF and the people who run GAF.
I don't believe people at GAF are just here to shit on games indiscriminately, I sure don't, we give a shit, we won't be so critical if we don't really care. The problem is Dyack and his team haven't really addressed any of the problems people here have mentioned, like the crappy animations and collision detection, they haven't shown any new levels, they've just been trying to push that loot thing, and to be honest I just don't give a shit about loot because I'm simply not a loot guy, I like action games, I like good combat, I like a bit of puzzles and platforming, I didn't play PSO for the loot either, I played it for the boss fights, I played it for the challenge, I played it for the community.
- Status