A Review of Too Human Reviews

[fzh]

As of today, August 31, 2008, Gamerankings lists too Human with a 69% average. Based upon fan response not in the neogaff forums, this seems to be a gross under-ranking.

Heavy hitters IGN and Gamespot gave Too Human 7.8 and 5.5 respectively. IGN seemed to give TH the benefit of the doubt and praise its ingenuity over its flaws. Gamespot... 5.5? Really? As Kevin Pereira points out, Kungfu Panda got a higher review. Other popular sites like 1up, Gamespy and Gamedaily ranked Too Human in the low 50's.

Dennis Dyack's challenge to the internet and its forums is likely to also have had a negative impact. While many followers have indeed turned around and found the game great, his retaliation is likely to have triggered contempt from journalistic gaming community.

Gameplay Reviews
Their reviews were based upon their short playtime to blitz through the game and apply a numerical value to assess their time with the game. Similarly to MMORPGS, Too Human requires more time than 1 or even 2 playthroughs to get a fair value out of it. The game presents a new combat control system and a new camera system. These are two relatively new concepts that take time to break in. A more fair evaluation would take longer than most reviewers had with the game.

Graphical Reviews
Too Human is not Mass Effect. It is not Call of Duty 4. It is not Assassin's Creed. Graphical slowdowns and a list of glithces seem to be a blight on Too Human's visuals. In a console generation where graphical power is the intial selling point, Too Human falls behind. Reviewers were quick to assault the weak character models in cut scenes and dips in framerate. However other graphical standpoints such as art direction and innovation were not brought up as most reviewers stayed focused on the negativity. Are we looking at a awe-inspiring take of Jerusalem? or a cross-fire in the middle east? No, but graphical Too Human still does its aesthetic appeal even if its polygons are low-res.

Story Reviews
Strangely, Too Human has also been strongly criticized for its story. Major gaming sites such as Gamespot, IGN and television's X-PLAY have complained that the Norse-mythology mixed in with technology is awkward and clunky. Although they all gave better ratings to pseudo sci-fi flicks like Assassin's creed, stereotypical Call of Duty, and cliched Halo.

Sound Reviews
Sound reviews were not as critical as other categories. Voice acting, sound effects and music were generally appreciated.

Lasting Appeal
The loot system and skill tree specs were the main proponents to reviewers giving Too Human replay value. Gamespot and IGN both point out that if you aren't into dungeon trawling or loot hunting this isn't the game for you. Although that may be true, hugely successful MMO's are based entirely on these two points. To criticize Too Human over it is to argue with WoW's 10 million subscribers who run the same raids over and over every week to get powerful enough gear to proceed to the next raid and repeat.

It seems that a great deal of negative press has plagued Too Human since it's xbox demonstartion at E3. Overall sales and fan appreciation are now the last bits of information to be released to reveal if Too Human is the most under-rated game ever released.

[bansin]

Simply, I agree. I'm outraged at the reviews put forth concerning Too Human. I'm not a fanboy person. I don't illogically go mad over anything but sushi. Too Human gives me the joy I used to get out of playing Phantasy Star Online endlessly. I only wish their were further difficulty settings outside of your level.

I can't believe I almost didn't buy Too Human because of those reviews. I bought it and played it because I was planning on sending the copy to my brother in Afghanistan since he requested it while deployed their. Now... I'm gonna have to buy a second copy to send along to him.

[Speak]

These reviewers are just o_O If i was their boss and seen what they produced, I would be mystified to say the least, Reviews are meant to be non-biased and meant to go past the point of personal feelings toward the games to give a fair review..

[AerialAlch]

Although they all gave better ratings to pseudo sci-fi flicks like Assassin's creed, stereotypical Call of Duty, and cliched Halo.

This, IMO, has noting to do with story. Maybe they had a story of around the same quality, or maybe even better, but the overall rating has nothing to do with story alone. Although CoD may be stereotypical, it immerses you in it's story, and the same thing goes for Assassin's Creed, maybe it just had a better "blend" of the old and the new. Halo I can't comment on, but reviews aren't focused on story alone, thus IMO the rating can't apply to what they thought of the story unless they specifically pointed out how the story is great and improves the game immensely.
Just my two cents, otherwise great review. ^^

[fzh]

Although they all gave better ratings to pseudo sci-fi flicks like Assassin's creed, stereotypical Call of Duty, and cliched Halo.

This, IMO, has noting to do with story. Maybe they had a story of around the same quality, or maybe even better, but the overall rating has nothing to do with story alone. Although CoD may be stereotypical, it immerses you in it's story, and the same thing goes for Assassin's Creed, maybe it just had a better "blend" of the old and the new. Halo I can't comment on, but reviews aren't focused on story alone, thus IMO the rating can't apply to what they thought of the story unless they specifically pointed out how the story is great and improves the game immensely.
Just my two cents, otherwise great review. ^^


Thanks for the input :)
COD4 is probably my most played 360 game. I quit wow last november and played COD4 pretty much up until now (1000/100 acheivement points, look me up on xbox live lol). I didn't find it immersive (could be just me) but I did find it incredibly cinematic and like starring in a modern war film. I also pretty much just played the multiplayer.

[Panzer]

HA! Call of Duty had a story, all of these games have a story, but you rate the story on how much it makes you think. The second I saw where the story was going in Call of Duty I knew exactly how it was going to end. And I dont diss that, I played a shooter to shoot stuff. when I play an ARPG or an RPG I expect an excellent story. (I saw that because MMoRPG's dont really have a story, they have lore, because technically you wont beat the game) Anyways to my point. Too Human's story was great, I love how they went out of bounds and mixed in a dead culture with a future culture. I love gothic fantasy, but at times I want an rpg that is different. They knew when to cut us out, so that we craved more, hats off to them. As for Cinema? I dont play RPG's for the cinema! Cinema is more of an Action game thing. If a RPG has it, then great.

As for people complaining about camera and controls, its called practice. Yes I know it can be tough trying to master the fierce attack, but with time you get used to it. Glitches? All games have glitches, sure this one has more than a few but I just use those glitches to my advantage, and if theyre frequent then theyre predictable, so why are you doing what your doing to enter the glitch?
(This doesnt apply to doors locking, falling through floors, things of that matter)
But I have seen far worse games, or games in a series that didnt live up to their previous title. Great examples for me:
Dynasty Warriors 6: I mean not all the officers even have their own move set anymore, for the love of god.

Devil May Cry 4: It was an awsome game, but they took too much out for me to feel at home.

Anyways this has become more of a rant than anything, but when it boils down reviewers have to look at who is putting in ads in their mag / site / whatever and they dont want to bad mouth certain things. Too Human should have been rated around the 8-9 region in my honest opinion. Also a word for the wise: Dont read reviewers comments. Pick through their crap and find what is actually in the game, not their little witty comments about them. You know what you like, and if you dont then get out of my culture. Your ruining it.

[fzh]

HA! Call of Duty had a story, all of these games have a story, but you rate the story on how much it makes you think. The second I saw where the story was going in Call of Duty I knew exactly how it was going to end. And I dont diss that, I played a shooter to shoot stuff. when I play an ARPG or an RPG I expect an excellent story. (I saw that because MMoRPG's dont really have a story, they have lore, because technically you wont beat the game) Anyways to my point. Too Human's story was great, I love how they went out of bounds and mixed in a dead culture with a future culture. I love gothic fantasy, but at times I want an rpg that is different. They knew when to cut us out, so that we craved more, hats off to them. As for Cinema? I dont play RPG's for the cinema! Cinema is more of an Action game thing. If a RPG has it, then great.

As for people complaining about camera and controls, its called practice. Yes I know it can be tough trying to master the fierce attack, but with time you get used to it. Glitches? All games have glitches, sure this one has more than a few but I just use those glitches to my advantage, and if theyre frequent then theyre predictable, so why are you doing what your doing to enter the glitch?
(This doesnt apply to doors locking, falling through floors, things of that matter)
But I have seen far worse games, or games in a series that didnt live up to their previous title. Great examples for me:
Dynasty Warriors 6: I mean not all the officers even have their own move set anymore, for the love of god.

Devil May Cry 4: It was an awsome game, but they took too much out for me to feel at home.

Anyways this has become more of a rant than anything, but when it boils down reviewers have to look at who is putting in ads in their mag / site / whatever and they dont want to bad mouth certain things. Too Human should have been rated around the 8-9 region in my honest opinion. Also a word for the wise: Dont read reviewers comments. Pick through their crap and find what is actually in the game, not their little witty comments about them. You know what you like, and if you dont then get out of my culture. Your ruining it.



Panzer just blitzkrieged them.
Unless your name is short for panzerotti. In which case, you sauced them.

[Lykathea]

Although they all gave better ratings to pseudo sci-fi flicks like Assassin's creed, stereotypical Call of Duty, and cliched Halo.


This, IMO, has noting to do with story. Maybe they had a story of around the same quality, or maybe even better, but the overall rating has nothing to do with story alone. Although CoD may be stereotypical, it immerses you in it's story, and the same thing goes for Assassin's Creed, maybe it just had a better "blend" of the old and the new. Halo I can't comment on, but reviews aren't focused on story alone, thus IMO the rating can't apply to what they thought of the story unless they specifically pointed out how the story is great and improves the game immensely.


That's the thing though, TH has an excellent subversive storyline which is closely tied to the rest of the game, yet reviewers do not seem to factor that into their evaluations (assuming here that they get the story, they probably don't)--story still remains a 'bonus' to reviewers that somehow exists outside the game itself.

[Vespasian]

That's the thing though, TH has an excellent subversive storyline which is closely tied to the rest of the game, yet reviewers do not seem to factor that into their evaluations (assuming here that they get the story, they probably don't)--story still remains a 'bonus' to reviewers that somehow exists outside the game itself.


Perhaps story is subjective?

The reviewers evidently didn't agree with you on that issue.

If a story is to be rated based on how much it makes you think, Braid would be a mile ahead of other games in that respect. Does that automatically make Braid the best game story out there? I don't think so.

[Lykathea]

Perhaps story is subjective?

The reviewers evidently didn't agree with you on that issue.

If a story is to be rated based on how much it makes you think, Braid would be a mile ahead of other games in that respect. Does that automatically make Braid the best game story out there? I don't think so.


You say subjective as if other parts of game evaluations are purely objective in contrast--the quality of a narrative is no more subjective than the quality of a game's design, sound, technology, etc; that is to say all of these are equally subjective. You are pointing to a supposed distinction where there is none. In other words, objective measures in the field of quality, simply do not exist and never will; thus, your first point is not only a vast oversimplification, it is also a misnomer.

Secondly, you seem to infer that I believe TH's story is unquestionably the best in the medium, however, in no way have I stated this position. Moreover, my own measure on narrative quality is far more comprehensive than such generic terminology as 'makes you think', as you seem to assume. To keep this short, a narrative needs to be significant on numerous levels for me to be able to deem it truly top tier. Portal, for instance, while amusing and well-written has nothing of importance to say. It is a pie with no filling, so to speak and this offers the player nothing beyond surface level appeal. Something like Psychonauts, on the other hand, manages to be infused with Portal's wry wit while offering up many interesting ideas that bind the experience together in a deeper significance. In the case of TH, it is perhaps the best example of subtle storytelling in the gaming medium, much lays below the surface--perhaps even too much for most gamers as the story, much like TH's gameplay, is unforgiving: it is up to the player to not only do the intellectual legwork to tie together the basic chronology of events (which is far more demanding than most games on the market in itself) but it also offers a much deeper substance that relays many interesting and significant subtexts (I am thinking here of ideas of technology and power, reality and perception, and truth).


All this gets away from my original point however, why do reviewers continually try to divorce story from games as simply secondary to the experience?

[Vespasian]

Lykathea, the last sentence in my previous post was responding to "Panzer", when he said this in the earlier thread:



HA! Call of Duty had a story, all of these games have a story, but you rate the story on how much it makes you think.


Panzer assumed everyone else rated the stories of games the same way he apparently does. Of course, his assumption is wrong, and that's what I was saying.

As for what you say about the other parts of a game not being objective, you're right of course. But some parts are certainly more objective than the story. For example, the visual fidelity of a game, while still subject to personal preference in art design and the like, is more objective.

Even if someone despises the color palette or art design of "Gears of War", anyone who knows a bit about the technical side of visuals will admit that it is extremely technically competent. COD4 running at 60 FPS is more impressive than COD4 running at 30 FPS. While people will argue endlessly about which game "looks" or "sounds" the best, those aspects are still more objective than something like story that is basically entirely subjective.

Personally, the aspects of the story that I like most of Too Human are certain parts of the setting with the art design, and the music (which could be part of the setting if you consider it such.) The premise is certainly unique, but frankly the execution of the story itself in the cutscenes takes it far below its potential.

Mass Effect's story wouldn't have been half as impressive if the character models and animations had been similar to that of Too Human (to me, of course, this is all subjective as I said earlier). That's why they spend so much time and money making those state of the art models and animations in the first place, because they know it matters.

[506_Deano]

Personally, I like the Norse blend because it's subtle. Take for example Tyr's comment about "not the first whelp I've muzzled" (or something like that) ... it was Tyr who conquered Fenrir. Too Human doesn't force that back story down your throat and I like that. And if it makes some kids read about Norse mythology - then bonus!

Now I appreciate a good story in a video game, and I think the medium is coming along. But seriously folks, if you're looking for great story turn off the Xbox and read a book!

[bansin]

I second that 506.

Ah, good point about the muzzling...I was considering that earlier today wondering, mostly why Baldur is screaming orders to flank and Tyr the tactical genious is the one spouting catch phrases.

Also, since we are talking story... After you defeat Hel and he returns to the long dinner table, he tells the other Aesir that Hel was consumed by the virus...but you know that wasn't stricktly the case because she was actually in the casket thingy... So I am wondering if that lays ground work for Baldur not to trust the Aesir that she is still alive.

[Sentient Muffin]

I second that 506.

Ah, good point about the muzzling...I was considering that earlier today wondering, mostly why Baldur is screaming orders to flank and Tyr the tactical genious is the one spouting catch phrases.

Also, since we are talking story... After you defeat Hel and he returns to the long dinner table, he tells the other Aesir that Hel was consumed by the virus...but you know that wasn't stricktly the case because she was actually in the casket thingy... So I am wondering if that lays ground work for Baldur not to trust the Aesir that she is still alive.


Fascinating possibility...Never occurred to me. I figured the needles in the "casket thingy" were injecting her with the virus. Though I'd never heard of any virus until Baldur mentioned it.