Similiarities to Citizen Kane?

[Dimmukane]

I'm not saying this is the greatest game ever made. But look at the circumstances surrounding both. Orson Welles had some sort of argument with Hearst, who basically blacklisted this movie as much as possible. Denis Dyack made some comments on NeoGAF, and many of the negative reviews are not surprisingly from members of that forum. Citizen Kane was initially panned, but some years later critics started hailing it as being ahead of it's time. Too Human was also initially panned, but some reviewers (Jeff Gerstmann) find themselves playing it longer than they needed to review it.

I was just wondering if anyone else saw any similarities.

[506_Deano]

That is interesting. I've also noticed that any game that tries to do something new and innovative usually gets beat up by media types pretty quick. I liken Too Human to Shadowrun for the 360. Both games offer extremely innovative gameplay, but the critics just can't get past "lack of polish", "too few maps", "too short", etc. Sound familiar?

[Lykathea]

If nothing else, TH will achieve a strong cult status--the game as a whole is just too subtle in nearly all aspects (story, combat, skill trees, loot, etc.) for most of the mainstream to 'get it'.

I mean you know a game is divisive when the press complain about an over abundance of loot, while others simply don't equip every new item they get (common sense, pure damage stat isn't everything) and end up using some great gear for a decently long duration (and feel quite empowered in the process).

[Vespasian]

That is interesting. I've also noticed that any game that tries to do something new and innovative usually gets beat up by media types pretty quick. I liken Too Human to Shadowrun for the 360. Both games offer extremely innovative gameplay, but the critics just can't get past "lack of polish", "too few maps", "too short", etc. Sound familiar?


Not all innovative games are panned the time by the press and public alike. Remember, to name just a few, Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Metroid Prime, Bioshock, Braid....ironic how all of the afore mentioned games were incredibly polished and quite lengthy by any standards. They all also had a wide variety of interesting and well developed environments...or at least the gaming press and public thought so, judging by the universally high reviews and extremely high sales figures of those games.And now I hear the latest innovation from Will Wright, Spore, has received a metacritic average of only 87/100!

Clearly the unwashed masses are unable to appreciate the subtle narrative and intellectual metaphors of these games, don't you agree Lykathea? :D

On the subject of loot, I spend half my time playing the game in the menus selling everything but the maybe 10% of loot that is actually better than what I already have. I must admit that I don't understand quite why the game wants to give me loot that is worse in every way than the stuff I'm already using, especially when it gives me 5 identical copies of said loot. And the loot that I can't use because of my class/alignment :D

[sfubear]

That happens in any loot and gathering game though, at least all of the ones I have played you always get stuff that you don't use or can't use, and you always get stuff that is crap compared to what you have, then you sell and and stop caring

[Eleazar]

I'm hoping other than the story that they really don't change anything to the game except to polish the details.

[506_Deano]

.... Not all innovative games are panned the time by the press and public alike.....


No, that is true. But god forbid a game deviates from the standard FPS or TPS control scheme or perspective and the game requires a learning curve. A consistent critique of Too Human that really bothers me is the constant refrain of 'please fix the camera' or 'the targeting system is broken'.... no actually, they work fine. You just need to learn how to use them. This game is subtle and it's too bad people just don't want to delve into those subtleties and learn how to play.

[theALLseeingEYE]

Not all innovative games are panned the time by the press and public alike. Remember, to name just a few, Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Metroid Prime, Bioshock, Braid....ironic how all of the afore mentioned games were incredibly polished and quite lengthy by any standards. They all also had a wide variety of interesting and well developed environments...or at least the gaming press and public thought so, judging by the universally high reviews and extremely high sales figures of those games.And now I hear the latest innovation from Will Wright, Spore, has received a metacritic average of only 87/100!

Clearly the unwashed masses are unable to appreciate the subtle narrative and intellectual metaphors of these games, don't you agree Lykathea? :D

On the subject of loot, I spend half my time playing the game in the menus selling everything but the maybe 10% of loot that is actually better than what I already have. I must admit that I don't understand quite why the game wants to give me loot that is worse in every way than the stuff I'm already using, especially when it gives me 5 identical copies of said loot. And the loot that I can't use because of my class/alignment :D

I'd say where your argument fails though Vesp, is that all of those games you listed are beloved franchises, or aren't really that Innovative. not saying you don't have a point, just that your examples don't stack up.

I personally think its pretty obvious that Too Human's dense nature from story, or for some, initially obtuse controls could put some off. I myself think Too Human is a great game. Which leads me to agree with Lykathea here.

Regarding this lovingly cynical quote ;)
"Clearly the unwashed masses are unable to appreciate the subtle narrative and intellectual metaphors of these games, don't you agree Lykathea? :D"

I don't necisarily think its the masses we are worried about. essentially everyone I know that has actually played the game, loves it, and is baffled by many of the seemingly ignorant reviews. I think what we are talking about is barrier to entry, and public politics leading to critic cynicism, and sometimes slander.

From my perspective, not being able to recognize or forsee critical bias in this case, is the equvilant of having ones head is in the sand. I think its clear as day personally. Critics are human too after all. Believing they are some sort of super-human organization that is absolved of petty disposition is naive.

[Lykathea]

Clearly the unwashed masses are unable to appreciate the subtle narrative and intellectual metaphors of these games, don't you agree Lykathea?

Vesp, you seem to be stuck on the notion that the press and sales indicate some measure of metaphysical product worth 100% of the time--in other words, if a product is panned and sells poorly it must be categorically bad. Obviously this form of appealing to popular views is extremely fallacious. Moreover, you also imply that the a fore mentioned success of particular games somehow indicates that they are really understood by the people who consume them. Again this is a fallacious argument form for obvious reasons.

[iron]

Good sales =\= good game.

Big words not needed? But I agree with the overall point.

[Lykathea]

Big words not needed? But I agree with the overall point.

The problem with your summary is that you miss the critical aspect of my retort. Otherwise it is a good way to accurately boil down my perspective.