Too Human review thread of scoring lower than Haze (BOOSH)
- Thread starter Zenith
- Start date
- Status
Kabuki Waq
Member
lets not forget Dyack also claimed this would be better than most of a games released this year....top tier.
So either he is wrong or this year really sucks.
So either he is wrong or this year really sucks.
eznark said:
If higher review scores don't work then things like metacritic scores would not affect a developer's bonus structure.
I don't see how message boards "overrate" themselves, gaf is just a place for people to talk shit, yeah people pass judgement on games, so what? Are we not allowed to? Says who?
The game's actual quality can't be any worse than 1UP's written review of it. That's a stunningly poor review. How is anybody supposed to gather any sort of real info on the game from it? He barely describes anything. I've seen posts on here make far better cases both for and against the game based solely on the demo.
Don't get me wrong, I am extremely excited for Too Human. However, my excitement does not mean I can not objectively look at this game. You show absolutely no objectivity; littering Too Human threads with incoherent ramblings and childish comments.
I never implied that. Kittowny is still bitter though that Dyack made him a pariah (regardless of whether Dyack was right or wrong).
Kittonwy said:
I think you missed the point. Metacritic is easy to quantify (it is a number after all) but I have yet to see any definitive study correlating review scores and sales figures.
Many MLB players have escalator clauses in their contracts for relatively meaningless stats like batting average. Sometimes people overrate (and thus overpay) the importance of various metrics just because they are easy to understand.
Kittonwy said:
So did I, and the only conclusion I can draw from the 1UP review is "Giancarlo didn't enjoy it." A lot of what he calls out as problems with the game are simply not problems from what I've played. The classes play extremely differently from one another, especially at higher levels, and the loot issue becomes less prominent as you find really good equipment that you stick with. Pretty much like any game of this type, really.
And the parting shot about falling through the world is ridiculous. That happened to me in GTA4. I agree with him that it's a problem that should (ideally) not occur in a game, but why is it so egregious in Too Human but glossed over in GTA4? Or maybe it didn't happen to him in GTA4, much as it has not happened to me in Too Human?
Reviews are subjective by definition. I know half the point of these threads is to compile all the reviews and pretend that objectively defines a game's quality, but the only thing that matters in the end is whether or not you like it yourself.
SlasherJPC
Banned
Zeliard said:
Its like going to gamefaqs and reading a user review. I swear...:lol
PSGames said:
It depends on what's IN the actual review, when another review has highlighted specific problems, it would be interesting to find out if the review in question discusses those problems or simply ignores them, most games have strengths and weaknesses, in the case of this 1UP review, there were just too many weaknesses associated with the game. I wouldn't just write off a review because it gives too high or too low of a score, it would be wise to actually read through the review to see what the reviewer has to say.
CartridgeBlower
Member
Damn, people. Chill out. The review was industry standard. Nothing 'bad' about it.
He said plenty of things -- the camera sucks, the loot system is busted, the cutscenes and animation are very poorly done, co-op is better than single player, the controls are not responsive, the enemies are all similar and their attack patterns are repetitive, etc.
Sounds like a pretty standard review to me. What did he 'miss' according to people here who haven't even played the game?
He said plenty of things -- the camera sucks, the loot system is busted, the cutscenes and animation are very poorly done, co-op is better than single player, the controls are not responsive, the enemies are all similar and their attack patterns are repetitive, etc.
Sounds like a pretty standard review to me. What did he 'miss' according to people here who haven't even played the game?
FieryBalrog
Member
I honestly don't get what's wrong with this review. Do we need a Gamespot style "here are the graphics, here is the sound, here is the gameplay, here are the controls, here is my conclusion" style of review? The paint-the-numbers review? Or just more words?
Seems like he's backed up by two reviews from the more prominent gaming news publishers.BenjaminBirdie said:
And who, in the gaming news industry, is backing you up at this time?
You need to accept that it's not just the case for everyone that the controllers suck, it is the majority. The only ones insistent enough to enjoy it are a third of the hardcore crowd.
Kabuki Waq
Member
MattKeil said:
i think the scope of the games are different.
Mithos Yggdrasill
Banned
eznark said:
Sure. I understand the point. If we admit for a moment that reviews have a positive/negative effect on sales, we should also say that its effect is proportional to its score somehow. But it take a significant effect only if the score is particulary good or bad. So, I think that you could be right about titles that have only an average score, because it finishes as anonyme game. In other words, nobody notice it.
But Too Human is different in my opinion, because it was supposed to be a smashing hit. A bit like Haze somehow, because the pedigree of Free Radical is (was?) way good. I think that many here expected a great title, overall because in the GC short presentation was really promising. But then SK declined and the result is what we can observe now.
So, a title that was expected good, but that result as a disappointment, will suffer its sales.
The fact that reputation and reviews partly counts is still supported by games like Haze, that, as disappointment, sold poorly.
But it's not a rule. Only a trend.
eznark said:
Again, you're right. You cannot put a Q.E.D. on that.
But it's a bit of "anedoctal evidence" and industry observation. Keep in mind that the industry move only because of money and any of their decision belongs to increase profits. Directly or indirectly. So, if recently Take Two, EA, Ubisoft and many others are SO interested to scores (from comments, to big critics to reviewers), there is a valid reason.
Again, it's a trend.
What's the line between "big enough scope to excuse game-killing bugs" and "not big enough scope to excuse game-killing bugs"? Further, is the bug Giancarlo ran into a recurring thing? Something he can duplicate? Or is a one-time thing called out simply to make the game seem worse?
MattKeil said:
Obviously GTAIV isn't glitch-free but it's much more ambitious in execution and scale, alot more things can go wrong with such a game versus what's basically a dungeon hack.
Yes people are subjective, that's why while you enjoyed the game, the guy from 1up didn't, but he gave a lot of good reasons why he didn't, and having played the demo I saw the same problems he highlighted.
Kabuki Waq
Member
MattKeil said:
well if you have a linear 15 hour or so game and you compare it to an open world game with tons of variables......
yeah so here's basically what I was going to post in the official thread.
I agree the 1up review by Giancarlo Varanini is poorly written, which is sad to see because 1up is a generally respected source of video game reviews. I'd say it's the biggest review to come out for TH yet in terms of who's publishing it, but the review's content is terrible.
I mean look at the opening sentence. " Too Human is not a good role-playing game." Well it's a good thing the game isn't just an RPG but also a hack-in-slash loot collecting game as well, huh? Way to miss the point.
And ending the review by mentioning there's some bug that drops players through the floor occasionally is poor form. It sounds like a reference to something we should have read more about earlier in the review. Or maybe the writer is about to expand more on the bug, as if the review isn't over yet. But no, the review ends and we're left to wonder, "Is this bug deal-breaking? How often does it happen? Can it be avoided at all?"
I understand why the review is kind of short because 1up has three people review games and only so much space to print them in the magazine, but that emphasizes the need to pack in more information to that limited space. Varanini complains about a lot of specific things that could have been summarized, "There's not much gameplay variety between classes and skill trees" but mentions little more about the game's strengths than how "the cyber-Norse concept of Too Human is a good one that's worth exploring further."
Essentially, the review is as bad as many in this thread say and it is a big deal because it comes from 1up, a normally respected outlet that should have given us writing of greater quality for this tentpole video game.
I agree the 1up review by Giancarlo Varanini is poorly written, which is sad to see because 1up is a generally respected source of video game reviews. I'd say it's the biggest review to come out for TH yet in terms of who's publishing it, but the review's content is terrible.
I mean look at the opening sentence. " Too Human is not a good role-playing game." Well it's a good thing the game isn't just an RPG but also a hack-in-slash loot collecting game as well, huh? Way to miss the point.
And ending the review by mentioning there's some bug that drops players through the floor occasionally is poor form. It sounds like a reference to something we should have read more about earlier in the review. Or maybe the writer is about to expand more on the bug, as if the review isn't over yet. But no, the review ends and we're left to wonder, "Is this bug deal-breaking? How often does it happen? Can it be avoided at all?"
I understand why the review is kind of short because 1up has three people review games and only so much space to print them in the magazine, but that emphasizes the need to pack in more information to that limited space. Varanini complains about a lot of specific things that could have been summarized, "There's not much gameplay variety between classes and skill trees" but mentions little more about the game's strengths than how "the cyber-Norse concept of Too Human is a good one that's worth exploring further."
Essentially, the review is as bad as many in this thread say and it is a big deal because it comes from 1up, a normally respected outlet that should have given us writing of greater quality for this tentpole video game.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Farnack said:
Matt Keil, Big Time TV Mogul?
Like I said, I'm not surprised the game didn't land for people. That's fine. That's not my problem. Kittonwy is implying that anyone with a positive impression of the game at this point is suspect, before even reading the reviews. That's my problem.
MattKeil said:
One is an open-world game where you're dealing with huge islands with multiple game mechanics and the other is a dungeon hack with a limited area you can traverse through, obviously the dungeon hack would get called out on being glitchy. If it was a game like God of War II or DMC4, guess what? People would still call the problem out, because the scope of these games are so much smaller than what a GTAIV is.
wayward archer
Member
FieryBalrog said:
As I said in the official thread my biggest problem with it is that it doesn't give me enough substance to help me draw the conclusion that i'll feel the same way about it. He barely talks about game specifics at all.
One example, discussion on the plot is limited to one sentence and is a tangent of him talking about how skipping it is one of the benefits of playing in co-op. Is that really all he has to say about it? That doesn't really help me at all.
PetriP-TNT
Member
I call IGN 6.5, is the review out tomorrow?
BenjaminBirdie said:
Problems were highlighted, if a review completely ignores the problems wouldn't they be suspect? It's like if a gymnast falls flat on her face or completely steps out of bounds and no points were deducted by a certain judge, wouldn't that look suspicious to you?
Mithos Yggdrasill said:
I submit that expectations for Too Human are almost entirely within the "hardcore" sphere, and the majority of 360 consumers, the ones who make games big sellers, don't know anything about the drama behind Too Human. All they know is this is the Next 360 Game To Buy.
kittonwy said:
I disagree, but you're not interested in the positive side of Too Human, it seems. Obviously the game is going to be a divisive one. I expect this will be the new game that gets brought up in other game threads to call out a poster, e.g. "Yeah, but you liked/hated Too Human!"
Horrible comparison. The gymnast either did or did not step out of bounds. Whether or not you think the combat of Too Human is fun or the classes are different enough is entirely opinion.
Danthrax said:
The "Hack and slash loot collecting game" is part of the RPG genre. Sorry.
Its interesting to suggest that, because the last "divisive game" got Praised by Game Informer, and panned by EGM, this time around it got panned by both Game Informer and EGM. (Not that im suggesting EGM/Gameinformer are the entire industry, just that i dont think it will be "that" divisive")
CartridgeBlower
Member
The review was fine. It's not like he didn't talk about what he felt were problems the game had. And isn't that what a review is?
I'm guessing if he loved the game, no one would be saying this was a 'poorly written' review. Just a hunch, though.
I'm guessing if he loved the game, no one would be saying this was a 'poorly written' review. Just a hunch, though.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Kittonwy said:
The reviews haven't been released yet! Who are you talking to?
This is the problem with scores. You're saying that because of the unequivacable flaws in the game, it's impossible for someone to objectively give the game a "good score". (I think.) My point is that these flaws can exist but someone can still objectively enjoy the game experience, and retain that moral truth of their enjoyment while still pointing out those flaws.
MattKeil said:
The player's guns are either locked on to already dead enemies or they aren't, in this case it's the former.
I played the demo, didn't really find anything particularly positive about it, while the demo was really easy, having played action games like DMC, God of War and NG I found the combat to be clunky as hell, the dialogue was awkward, the character and vehicle designs were atrociously bad, what "positive side" would you like me to be interested in? What the fuck do you expect me to do? Buy the game and learn to like it even though there's not a single thing I liked about the demo, and reviews from two prominent publications have clearly indicated the game might not be good? You know what? I did that with Kane and Lynch, that was a big mistake, I'm not sure I want to make the same mistake again.
wayward archer
Member
CartridgeBlower said:
I dunno, the positive reviews last week drew some pretty venomous comments. Unfortunately you can't please everyone all the time in online videogame discussion.
Mithos Yggdrasill
Banned
eznark said:
Definitely. But I also agree with a poster who said some pages ago that in this case, the fact that the game is coming out in an non-holiday period and that it's not getting a decent marketing effort is the determining factor that will decide the result.
In fact, after all, the X360 market expectations and previsions are the easier to do in my opinion.
That's because we know the audience (very hardcore oriented), and which games sell and which don't. Lot of titles of the same category makes possible lots of comparisons.
For example, games like Viva Pinata don't sell. FPS, instead, sells very well. These are tendences that helps.
Too Human could be helped by this factor (it (edited) has FPS-elements, even if somehow it is an hybrid).
To a degree of countereffect, I actually didn't know Matt Keil. Sorry Matt Keil. XDBenjaminBirdie said:
Googled something about G4.... I'll keep to myself on that one.
I'll just challenge his opinion.
So what is the positive side of Too Human?MattKeil said:
The combat animations and the cutscenes are terrible.
The storyline has been called out to be pretty boring that they'd rather play multiplayer to skip it.
The environments are plain and barren.
The combat and camera systems are completely destroyed by the breaking of game conventions.
And the atrocious inventory management menu system undermined the slightly positive loot collecting.
Mithos Yggdrasill
Banned
border said:
I wrote it's an hybrid. There are shooting elements. So, the FPS audience, so big on X360, could be an helpful element for the game. That was what I meant. I edited it so that it's clear.
I just wish somebody at Silicon Knights could explain how a 120 man people (or more), with a 4 year development cycle, comes up with this shit.
They show something at e3 2006, blame it for being early etc, say it will all come together, throw spit at everyone and then two years later, it's still shit, or at least it's not considered really good across the board(to be polite).
I mean, cmon. There's something wrong with that, this should be much more than just a game that will be enjoyed by a select few.
They show something at e3 2006, blame it for being early etc, say it will all come together, throw spit at everyone and then two years later, it's still shit, or at least it's not considered really good across the board(to be polite).
I mean, cmon. There's something wrong with that, this should be much more than just a game that will be enjoyed by a select few.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Farnack said:
a) The animation was indeed choppy.
b) No clue on that score
c) I didn't find that to be the case. They're fairly large but they didn't look offensively bad. The gigantic statues made me figure they were built enormously large.
d) Playing with Iso Camera and using the controls with subtlety completely changed the game experience for me. NOTE: This is not a defense of the game's choices of course. Defaults should allow the game to be enjoyed immediately. I offer it as an explanation of how an individual might actually enjoy the game experience. NOT why EVERYONE should.
e) I didn't find the menus any more offensive than Mass Effect's. A bit annoying, but certainly not robbing the game of any and all benefits of its loot system.
TheRagnCajun
Member
How about we don't demonize 1up for their review until other major review sites have chimed in? If 1up truly is way off base there will be egg on their face soon.
- Status