Too Human, Too Bad

[Sevens]

you'd be surprised how accurate most of it is. there are places here and there that have been amended mostly because its just to weird or wouldn't work well with the game. but i've been pretty impressed with the over all accuracy of the game compared to the source material

I only expect changes where it significantly adds to the final product. That being said, no I'm not surprised. A lot still has to be revealed, though, and that specifically includes the first game.

[AKAtheMilkman]

I only expect changes where it significantly adds to the final product. That being said, no I'm not surprised. A lot still has to be revealed, though, and that specifically includes the first game.

there are some things that i would be surprised if they include. like the fact that baldur has a kid, forseti, who is like the chief justice of they norse gods.

one thing i hope they add is the holy cow audulma. who licked into existence the first god buri out of a block of ice

[Halstaag]

A good article, well written.

That said, my interpretation of the Aesir actions as a whole regarding Baldur is that they did not want him to know that he died to spare him additional emotional pain. As Hod killed Baldur, it was an easy lie to tell him that Hod killed his wife, which covered the repeated suicide/depression problem with Nyanna and also cast Hod in the appropriate light as far as they were concerned. As regards to Heimdall, his actions can be explained similarly, he knew that Hod's cybernetics would have a record of him shooting Baldur and he wanted to avoid Baldur discovering that. I do not believe that Heimdall knew that Loki had hacked Hod's eyes. That being said, the portrayal of Heimdall all the way through is that of someone who knows more than he is telling, which always prompts feelings of suspicion.

[Thikr]

I think it is a well written review but I have a few bugaboos with it... You were talking about different characters' "morally ambiguous" motives and eventually landed at the NORNS. Of course I'm no scholar of Norse Mythology but because NORNS is an acronym for Non-Organic Rational Nano-System, I can only assume they have a clear cut purpose such as keeping the cyber world intact.

Similarly, I agree with Baldur being a "Lunatic on roller skates" however his wife was murdered by one of his family, and the rest of his family covered it up. Unless you are a sociopath, this is a moving event (moving for the worse). Plus, Baldur HAD to kill Hod. This game (and it's sequels hopefully) stick strikingly close to Norse Mythology and the killing of Hod (In mythology with a mistletoe arrow, in the game with a mistletoe virus, bravo SK) was a necessary event.

To be honest, I didn't read the whole thing but you are doing a splendid job thus far. That other stuff is just my two cents and I simply my opinion

[Sevens]

I think it is a well written review but I have a few bugaboos with it... You were talking about different characters' "morally ambiguous" motives and eventually landed at the NORNS. Of course I'm no scholar of Norse Mythology but because NORNS is an acronym for Non-Organic Rational Nano-System, I can only assume they have a clear cut purpose such as keeping the cyber world intact.

At this point I'm basically not taking Norse mythology into account at all. That of course has advantages and disadvantages. Chances are, I'll revisit this and do it from a different perspective, prominently including Norse mythology. With that in mind, I think it's more effective and productive to leave out mythology first, as compared to approaching this vice versa. That being said, the average gamer probably doesn't know about Norse mythology and thus judges the game as a "complete" and definitive product.

As for the NORNs, their name - its meaning - is an interesting aspect. However, considering what I've just said above, it's a name they got a long time ago. It still appears to me that they may have evolved. These three "personalities" (quotation marks necessary?), to me, appeared to be more than (only) rational, for example. They may (still) serve - promote - specific purposes. Nonetheless, the means of reaching an end can be numerous and (the paths chosen) morally manifold. Plus, over time, there could have appeared additional purposes, individual ones even (I would like that, by the way). What order of priority those might have (also primary, secondary etc.) is not necessarily limited, in my view.

AKAtheMilkman made a comment on the NORNs' role as well (following that one, there's a brief discussion).

(...) [Baldur's] wife was murdered by one of his family, and the rest of his family covered it up. Unless you are a sociopath, this is a moving event (moving for the worse).

I agree. Nonetheless, I find it didn't move him in a believable way and, to a lesser degree, perhaps direction. Many things have happened to and around him.

Plus, Baldur HAD to kill Hod. This game (and it's sequels hopefully) stick strikingly close to Norse Mythology and the killing of Hod (In mythology with a mistletoe arrow, in the game with a mistletoe virus, bravo SK) was a necessary event.

Sound reasoning and I don't necessarily disagree. I think I'm not too content with the circumstances, background and details (of it in the game), though.

To be honest, I didn't read the whole thing (...).

Hell, "even" I have problems reading it

(...) you are doing a splendid job thus far. That other stuff is just my two cents and I simply my opinion

I'm not nearly entirely satisfied with it (the job thus far) but I appreciate the compliment and definately your two cents.

[Sevens]

6. Explore?

The depth of a game depends on what it offers to explore. These can be a lot of different things. Most aspects of a game can have a deeper relevance.

Because the player can choose what he wants to learn more about, there’s a difference to books. One can leave out pages or read through passages with less care. But that, at least, is not a solution as elegant as that video games can provide. If you want to learn more about characters, the game may allow you to talk to them or other characters. It could let you find additional documents if you search more carefully. Developers can place hints and leads that will guide dedicated players to new (“optional”) environments, characters and, generally, information. That’s what makes a game more personal.

Books depend a lot on the reader’s background and imagination. Readers are inevitably limited - and occasionally favored - by their experience and what they have seen before. Of course this also applies to movies and video games but to a lesser degree. The original description (the kind that doesn’t require the reader/player to be creative, to rely on past experience) in books can’t be as detailed as spoken sentences and pictures. Audio-visual data can hold/transfer more information than text. In books, the author has to omit details, he has to focus on some and decide against others. When you write a book, you normally can’t use 20 pages to describe one room. Video games are more open here. If the player is placed in a room he may be allowed to look at every object in it, from numerous angles. In addition to voices, music can be very and uniquely powerful.

Games, in a way, can be more personal because they (can) allow the player to actively customize their experience. They are less personal (in a positive sense) because they generally don’t depend on the player as much as books do on the reader. In video games, you don’t have to know what a door looks like. Admittedly, you’d probably have to know what it does, though, in order to proceed through the game. Video games can be more precise, more detailed and unique (independent) than books - and that with less effort (for the consumer). I’m not saying games are better than books. Both have distinct (dis)advantages.

“We want [the player] to be curious. When you get to a new area you should be completely entranced in the new possibilities. (…) What are the things that are here for me to do? (…) What’s cool, what can I check out? - Henry Sterchi, developer diary # 2, from 2:31.”

These are pretty much my sentiments. As I’ve previously mentioned, Too Human does evoke curiosity. Unfortunately, it doesn’t satisfy it adequately, though. There’s not much to explore, it’s not possible to learn much about the game’s world and its characters. It’s rare that you can talk to someone, you don’t find documents and the number of environments is very limited.

This is also true for the details found in these environments. Except for parts of the tower, you won’t find much to look at. Elements, such as statues are re-used repeatedly and rooms oftentimes barren. To a certain degree that may be due to the game’s own brand of combat. That kind of combat seems to be in the way of exploration. It requires large and largely empty spaces.

“Well, before we did Metal Gear Solid, I thought that pre-rendered was the way to go, and since working with Kojima we're now all behind real-time, but the reason that we're behind real-time is that, I think the whole idea of story-gameplay-story-gameplay, is really going the way of the dodo, and what we're doing with Too Human is, we're adding interactivity into the content as much as we can. That whole gap between gameplay and story is something we're trying to erase. By doing that, specifically in Too Human and in our future products, we think that it's really going to help video games stand out on their own merit.“

(…)

“Do you think that doing things like exploring the world of Hyrule in a Zelda game, stealing cars in Grand Theft Auto, stomping goombas in Super Mario Bros.... can those types of things be considered as a form of storytelling?
Denis Dyack: Oh, good question. I think it's that kind of stuff, that kind of game design, that's going to be the future.“ - Denis Dyack, http://dev.shacknews.com/featuredart...?id=376&page=3.


Exploration 1 - Resident Evil (Gamecube/Wii)


Exploration 2 - Resident Evil (Gamecube)


Exploration 3 - Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes (Gamecube): Codec

If exploration (here: of environments) is considered story(-telling) - I agree with that, by the way - then Too Human‘s story has even more so been interrupted by gameplay. Something Silicon Knights apparently generally wanted to avoid.
Side-quests are a potent combination of different categories of exploration. Too Human‘s "take" on side-quests asks players to fulfill certain, isolated gameplay requirements to unlock the power of charms. No new environments, no information about the world‘s history and no information about characters. That‘s disappointing and, for my taste, too much glue:

‚"If games are to follow the trajectory of films, then the dominance of gameplay will diminish in place of an increased focus and importance on gaming’s stories and the ways in which they are told[.]

(…)

"That video games are art is quite obvious to me," he continued. "The new synthesis is interactivity and gameplay. Instead of moving pictures, that which movies brought to art, we now have interactivity as the glue that brings together all the previous artistic elements.‘ - Denis Dyack (interviewed)

[Sevens]

7. Immersion

7.1 “Emmersion”

Here’s the sad part, I don’t find Too Human immersive. Now well, that’s probably not going to make any of you cry, which is a good thing, too. Honestly, though, there’s a lack of “meaningful” content. I’m pretty sure that for the hardcore collectors the gameplay alone is almost enough to make the game immersive.

To me, however, it’s predominantly about elements outside of mere gameplay. From what I understand that’s more in line with Silicon Knights’ understanding of video games also.


7.1.1 "Emmersion" Through Characters

When Thor fell of that bridge I thought “look, Thor fell off a bridge” [technically he fell down with a part of a bridge], which is probably a natural reaction. The point is, I didn’t react in any other way. Hell, that pillar crashing down on him was entirely random. But that’s not the (next) point either, I just didn’t and don’t care about Thor. From my perspective he is, at this point, a shallow, generic and irrelevant character. That’s the case with a lot of what Too Human does. There’s a lack of substance, depth and length. I’m not going to address Mimir - I didn’t even realize that he must have been around at that bridge scene. Feel free to disagree and please do so vocally, but even with the optional “conversations” with Tyr the same applies. When Tyr was killed, I neither found the scene itself dramatic nor the implications it would have. Then there are the Wolf Troopers. It’s like having Donald Duck - a couple of them - in Million Dollar Baby. They have a detrimental effect on everything around them. They’ve been implemented so poorly that they have an “emmersive” rather than immersive capacity. For one, like a couple of Donald Ducks, they all essentially look the same. What they have to say, as I’ve covered before, is rather ridiculous, mostly. I think it’s a mistake to only follow the story of individual “Gods”. Following the kind-of-story of a group of Wolf Troopers (= cardboard clones) doesn’t make up for not covering individual people, individual Wolf Troopers with not only individual names but also personalities. As a result: do you remember the Wolf Trooper that got shot in the Hod scene? Did you care about that? I didn’t.

I’ve criticized Baldur in one of the earlier parts so I’ll skip that here. His wife - or how she’s been “handled” - is a problem, too. She - her fate - was not much of a motivating factor. The actual dimension of her pain only became apparent when the game was over. Before that it was as abstract as “she - a faceless… entity - barely more than a name - was killed“.

[Zakath]

Great review so far. Lots of valid criticism and I agree with most of them.

[Sevens]

7.2. Lack of Depth/Length

There‘s at least a handful of elements that don‘t yet have as much substance as one would expect.


7.2.1 Themes

a) The World‘s Done For

That‘s not a bad premise. Unfortunately the world‘s only done for on paper. Usually that‘d be a good thing, not in video games, though. Two reasons for the former (the paper part) can be found.


aa) Don‘t Show That

The first one: „the enemy“ doesn‘t appear to be much of a threat. A couple of people are killed in the first cut scene which goes hand in hand with an awkward face-off between GRNDL and Baldur. Due to reasons I talked about before, GRNDL doesn‘t exactly evoke fear. The same goes for the other opponents the player is pitched against. Neither are these targets fearsome visually, they also suffer because of a lack of context and because of Too Human‘s gameplay. When you „pinball-kill“ hordes of hostiles they end up being numbers, abstract objects. What you deal with in Too Human effectively resembles Super Mario‘s confrontations with (sort-of) turtles. In that sense, and slightly exaggerated, Baldur becomes a Mario-esque turtle shell that shows loads of Koopa Troopers who‘s boss, albeit in 3D rather than 2. Admittedly, this type of rampage is occasionally interrupted by Valkyries. But those are feared for time-related reasons predominantly.

To make this point clearer, I would like to compare Too Human‘s approach to that of Resident Evil and briefly to Gears of War. The classic RE places the player in an environment he doesn‘t control and limits their movement. Too Human does the opposite. The number of enemy encounters in RE is drastically reduced when compared to Too Human. Furthermore, even small numbers of basic enemies can by all means pose a threat to the player‘s character. Zombie‘s themselves are enigmatic and inherently „scary“. So are old mansions located in the middle of deep forests. Wide open environments aren‘t. One can observe these effects within the RE series itself, progressively. The games have progressed/devolved from 1 over 4 to 5. While Gears of War pits players against wave after wave of enemies, it manages to keep the Locust „scary“; they are by design.



Other small elements of Too Human‘s gameplay further hamper the emergence of an immersive atmosphere. Being able to - via menu - immediately return to the HUB world at any point and actually entering a parallel universe when doing so is an overlooked problem, I think. You won‘t find that in a classic RPG. Even Diablo employs portal scrolls to maintain continuity and believability. Too Human‘s multiplayer mode should also be mentioned here. Having two Baldur‘s and altered settings that are destined to be played countless times does have a subtle, subversive effect on how the „real“ world of the game is perceived. The principle of detrimental effects here is similar to that of „retconning“ and „non-canon“ products.


bb) Tell and No Show

Over the course of the game, you‘re told - neither at great length nor in great detail - that humanity is at the brink of extinction. In the 2nd half, related problems are mentioned and/or alluded to. This whole aspect is dealt with very superficially: another shadow that is cast, yet not substantiated. You don‘t see that (the extinction part) reflected in environments and people - not to a lasting, relevant impression, that is.

I‘ve just before addressed the (external) threat of invading forces, machine enemies, which doesn‘t become apparent at all. The (internal) threat of civil unrest is about as vague and unimpressive. For someone charged with the defense of mankind and in severe danger of losing, the Aesir are amusingly aggressive. Throughout the game they are (the) dominant aggressors. Their territory might have been ravaged, but who are you to pass judgment on that claim? You‘re either visiting Cyberspace, the intact tower, or enemy territory. Relying on that and the introductory bar scene doesn‘t suffice, in my opinion.

„As the Cybernetic God Baldur, players are thrust into the midst of an ongoing battle that threatens the existence of mankind. An ancient machine presence has forced the God's hand. In the first of a three part trilogy, Baldur is charged with defending mankind from an onslaught of monstrous war machines bent on eradication of human life.“ - http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/objects/748/748783.html

For real?

The state of Gears of War‘s Sera, in comparison, is conveyed more palpably. Ironically, in this case, a shooter allows for more exploration than an RPG.




b) Too Human?

„How did the idea for Too Human come about?
The original inception of the game was to create a game that commented on the effects of technology of society and culture. So we wanted to create a game where you had the ability to upgrade yourself cybernetically and where people were telling you that you were too human and you needed to do this to survive but at the same time, knowing that there's not necessarily all these positive effects. So just like with some technologies, people always see the positives and don't always see the negatives, we want people thinking about both the positive and the negative. So that was the core concept.“- http://www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=5792

Perhaps as one of the biggest letdowns, the effects of technology on society haven‘t been discussed/illustrated a lot. Sure, these are occasionally mentioned („Thor couldn‘t do what he‘s doing...“; Baldur being encouraged to „upgrade“; humans v. Gods; manipulation (of Hod, Cyberspace); Hel‘s research; war; the sheer presence of highly developed technology etc.) but it passes by quickly. To be fair, I probably would‘ve just wanted more, more densely connected, further (intricately) presented - you name it. I like what Final Fantasy VII commented on and how. Of course its length and focus enabled its creators to do that.

„As Dyack himself seemed to suggest, Too Human represents what has become less a temporary trend and more a reality for RPG games from here on out. The long, epic, Japanese RPGs of yesteryear are quickly falling to the wayside as budgets climb and interest wanes. The advent of a major installment of Final Fantasy going multiplatform should be all the proof one needs to see that the long-lost days of the exclusive, extensively developed, and polished 100-hour epic are just that: long-lost. The ever-climbing development costs have made developers rethink the RPG format for viability.
Too Human is very much at the forefront of this new generation of role-playing games, with a focus on action and multiplayer that doesn't necessarily impede the telling of an epic story. Whether or not gamers respond to the title once they've beaten it in the same way, though, is a question that can only be answered after the game ships.“ - http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...rview-e3.ars/2

That‘s something to think about.

[Grief]

Very well written review, I have read every word so far and I look forward to finishing it later.

It is amazing to me how much potential this game has, and how much it wasted. With the graphics, game play, story line, levels, all are so close to being perfection, yet all fall just short.

It is crazy to think what Silicon Knights could have done if they didn't have to deal with all of the nastiness from Epic and instead could have devoted all of their time to the game. Rather then having to worry about legal disputes and having to start over with their own engine half way through.

I think this game could have benefited massively from a prologue, maybe another level, to better explain the story and allow more time for the player to learn the game mechanics and some better level design. Really this translates into more development time for some extra polish, but that investment would have been worth it in the long run.

[Sevens]

8. Conclusion

Too Human was supposed to be a deep game with complex characters that move within the realms of a believable and ultimately immersive world. Well, obviously there are fantastic aspects - fantastic as in fiction and imagination - so believability is more a matter of consistency than reality.
Unfortunately only few, if any, of these goals have been reached. Granted, we are talking about a trilogy here. As a consequence one can’t expect to get the entire experience in one game, naturally (and regrettably evidently). But the game should be able to stand on its own and in a way mirror the trilogy. Too Human (1)’s tale is not impressive. It doesn’t attempt to elaborate more than a low number of characters. It’s scope and depth are strikingly limited. That’s, of course, a matter of comparison.

Denis Dyack - Silicon Knights - compared it to the “old” kind of (role playing ) games, essentially saying that people don’t really want - certainly won’t get, apparently - these epic 100 hour games any longer. They kind of don’t want to spend that much time anymore. Personally I think that [“they”] is more the developers than the gamers. In an absurd move, he then proceeds to outline that Too Human is designed around loot hunting. One of the most tedious and arguably redundant processes video gaming has ever seen (the other is figuring out why Zelda would be considered an RPG). Not only does that conflict with his “gamers don’t want 100 hours” theory, it also stands in ridiculous contrast to his theory of games being the “next” (I think it’s No. 8) art form (which is great in itself!), with gameplay supporting story and character development. I fail to see how hunting loot in the same environments under paradox circumstances (2 Baldurs, reborn bosses etc.) for dozens of hours is in any way advanced and supportive of advanced concepts. On top of that, designing an extreme amount of armor “permutations” must have something to do with the existence of barren, repetitive and uninspired environments. Too Human lacks in detail and relevance (outside of armors, of course).

The more interesting characters, presenting different opinions and perspectives (Frey and Hel, for example), aren’t even shadows of what they should be. There’s a lot of potential left and right. At times left left and right. What are the NORNs, how does Cyberspace affect the real world (Nidhogg) and vice versa, what’s up with ODIN, Valkyries - and so on. There are several potential parties. Instead of outlining and detailing any of them (the player gets a fracture of Hel’s position [here’s hoping this isn’t the last from that direction], can observe a few actions of Heimdall (no thoughts, though) and then has to deal with Freya who disappointingly is limited to helping Baldur deliver his (entirely boring) lines, the very same Baldur who’s killing people that could have killed his wife (acting in an unbelievable way - emphatically and reasonably - all the… uh… way) and not much else. I guess I forgot Tyr, but that’s probably because you can forget about him. His role is… hard to tell-- well, he dies. He does about as much good for the game as the Wolf Troopers.

The theory of flow doesn’t work with Too Human. Which is quite amusing. Silicon Knights managed to come up with a few of what seem to be riverbeds. Too bad, though, that someone forgot to add water to them. Pretty much to any of them. I’d say they managed to get people thirsty, all right. Oh, and some angry. At the end of the game, suddenly there is enough water to maybe start flowing. Flowing into a brick wall, if so. I’m not talking about the Giant. That’s irrelevant to me. The interesting moments are Hel going into detail (well, for Too Human, anyway) about Nidhogg, death and the reanimations she does, Frey’s very brief discussion with Heimdall and what could be Freya showing disapproval.

There are no personal relationships to speak of (Freya and Baldur have a history together, details are exceptionally vague, as is their shared presence; things are similar with Baldur‘s wife; no friendships or animosities are detailed (regarding Loki <> Heimdall there’s an exception).

Thematically, there’s a brief sequence on personal sacrifice, which is about Loki’s physical “enhancements”. Sadly not much more can be found. The effects of technology on society at display are restricted to short moments of manipulation (for example Hod’s implant) and related information control (Baldur’s de-briefs in the med lab). These are presented without statements, opinions. The Wolf Troopers don’t manage to bring anything positive across and the bar scene hardly suffices in illustrating a torn and ravaged world.

The game does have style and the trilogy does have potential. It’s too bad that there’s a lack of content and detail. This should drastically change in the second game. Denis Dyack’s thoughts and ideas are very intelligent, and I for one definitely like to read about them. However, there’s very much left to be done. I honestly hope that most of these shortcomings, essentially the shortness, are not based on entirely free design choices. It’d be good if all this was due to engine problems and/or a general lack of time. (I don‘t consider the development as having effectively been as long as ten or four years).


With this section, I've finished the draft.

[The Skoomaeater]

I hereby promise to read every word of this and give some constructive comments when I am less stoned.

[Sevens]

I recently completed another playthrough and below is my current opinion of the game, in a short form, largely resembling the detailed version from 12 months ago.





Too Human’s elemental, core problem is a/the lack of content. Its story is much too short. Characters, past events, the shape and structure of its world aren’t elaborated enough. A lot may have happened and there seem to be the shadows of these things and of the things to come. But it’s hard to care about the (parts of the) events one gets to see or to deduce. It doesn’t help that one can’t relate to the protagonist, who behaves in an almost ridiculous way. On top of that, an (evil) antagonist can’t be found. Perhaps Silicon Knights have also assumed that people know about Norse mythology in detail, which would be a grave mistake.

Too Human rarely even scratches the surface of what could be a good tale. The places one goes to are for the most part large, barren and bland and drag on accordingly. There’s not much to be found, hardly anything to be explored. People don’t have much to say at all and there are very few to talk to. Optional quests are entirely absent.

It appears to cast the silhouette of the good, perhaps even remarkable game it could have been. One is taken close to the thought that relevant themes do have a (albeit) vague, shady presence in the distant background; these don’t take on a form, though. There are traces of (distinct) class, art and style. As such, the game is a haggard entity, and can barely be thought of as a prelude.

[Sevens]

The previous post may have been too short to do the game justice. (I'd say it wasn't necessarily too short to sound stupidly pretentious. though.) So, to make things worse, I'll just add another short one. It's supposed to be a list of the good, the bad and a number of suggestions. Naturally it'll be subjective to a considerable extent.

Even where it doesn't make the impression, there's supposed to be a general sense of respect. Under certain circumstances, it's easier to critize than to create. Even more often, probably, it's easier to criticize than to be critized.

Good

• The World Trea area (visally impressive, stylish, unique)
• The raven(s) (almost inevitably mysterious, pretty cool surveillance drones, maybe even more)
• The NORNs (uniquely positioned; motives, personality and agenda/role could be/remain interesting)
• Freya (similarities to the NORNs in positioning, history as Vanir)
• Nidhogg (interesting entity; some sort of presence in both realms, could be the key to making sense of the structure, rules and some of the more intricate workings of the game’s world)
• Hel
• The gatekeeper (probably the most mythical-looking creature; could’ve been from a fantasy RPG)
• Nianna (perhaps the most profoundly emotional aspect of the game)
• Heimdall's office/The Cliffs of Heaven (nice idea and design)
• The spider
• Ambivalence (loyalties, motivations, morality)
• (Untapped potential)

Bad

• Action sequences (esp. bar fight)
• Animations
• Lighting
• Visually oftentimes too cartoonish
• Armor
• Weapons
• Washed out colors
• Bland, repetitive environments
• Unimpressive enemy design
• Boss fights
• Classes and gameplay
• Sense of/attempt at humour
• Wolf Troopers
• Talking to NPCs
• No sidequests
• Baldur ([partially subjective:] multiple irrational and emotionally incomprehensible actions, uninteresting character)
• Fenrir
• Cyberspace, the place, not the concept (no music, mostly tedious and uninspired)
• Largely doesn't flow/engage; broken amusement park
• (Untapped potential)

Suggestions

1) Fenrir and the Spider

I would suggest giving Fenrir personality (trace amounts were shown). It’s supposed to be a sentient weapon and connected to Loki. It’s an interesting piece of (in part Giant) technology and could serve to explain and integrate that aspect of the game’s world. Plus, its “allegiances” can complicate things, which is good (compare the last Nianna scene).

Similarly, a greater focus should be put on the spider. Unlike the - up to a late point - ever-changing equipment, the spider is a constant. The spider can allow for an emotional connection. I’m not necessarily suggesting another Fable dog (and no, Peter Molyneux didn‘t invent that concept, see The Bard‘s Tale, for example), but it goes in that direction.
Aside from character/personality, there should be implications for gameplay. The spider, for example, should have more attributes than a single (button) skill. Greater relevance in gameplay, a more meaningful, diverse and adjustable presence in gameplay, further strengthens the role of both spider and Fenrir. That role is based on their respective story relevance. There’s potential for betrayal. Fenrir has its (own) mind, possibly; the spider originates from the NORNs. Trusting, using, relying on either of them builds the groundwork for betrayal and comparable controversies.

Strenghtening the role of these two connects and sustaines several aspects of the story and world. Both shouldn’t be largely anonymous gameplay devices. Their backgrounds - NORNs, Giants, Loki etc. - should echo throughout their usage and should be underlined in interspersed (and interwoven) cutscenes. The more connections and consistence - permanence - the more believable, interesting and immersive a game’s world and a game’s themes become.

Unfortunately, the possibility to frequently change weapons and thus Fenrir(’s embodiment) is detrimental to his identity and involvement. I suggest either making Fenrir a special weapon altogether - comparable to the spider - and/or strictly limiting the player’s freedom to change his shape. That could for example mean mandatory dual-wielding (one freely changeable weapon plus Fenrir) or a second weapon set (two combinations of melee and ranged ones).

At any rate, Fenrir and the spider should be permanently displayed on the player character and not be part of the designable equipment. They - particularly Fenrir - should be treated as - at least much like - (NPC) characters. Player’s can’t change Freya’s clother (might be a nice unlockable bonus ; ) ), body or face. They perhaps shouldn’t be able to do that with Fenrir and the spider.

Fenrir and the spider should level up indepedently from the player character. That would underline their role - relative independence - and relevance. It also goes hand-in-hand with giving them more abilities/skills. I would consider giving Fenrir a live of its own in effective gameplay. Largely removed from, and in addition to, player control, he could react to certain circumstances in combat and execute defensive or offensive actions. Of course if so, this should happen in coordination with the story. It also serves as another argument for turning Fenrir into a special - isolated - weapon, largely removed from the player’s grasp and access. That aside, maybe Fenrir should be given a (wolf?) avatar, in some fashion.

2) et cetera - to be continued

[Redenbacher09]

I'm definitely in favor of the idea of Fenrir and the Spider leveling up separately. One thing I was a little confused about is the mention of Fenrir, Spider, and betrayal - because of their different origins? Could you elaborate on this? At first glance, it seemed as though you were suggesting that Baldur's weapons may quarrel with one other? I think I'm misinterpreting that .

The other part that concerned me was the change of the weapons design. With the proposed system change, incorporating the focus on the development of Fenrir, how would the loot mechanics play in to that? Perhaps new Blueprints change the shape and attributes of your weapons, rather than new physical weapons?

[Sevens]

I'm definitely in favor of the idea of Fenrir and the Spider leveling up separately. One thing I was a little confused about is the mention of Fenrir, Spider, and betrayal - because of their different origins? Could you elaborate on this? At first glance, it seemed as though you were suggesting that Baldur's weapons may quarrel with one other? I think I'm misinterpreting that .

The other part that concerned me was the change of the weapons design. With the proposed system change, incorporating the focus on the development of Fenrir, how would the loot mechanics play in to that? Perhaps new Blueprints change the shape and attributes of your weapons, rather than new physical weapons?

I didn't intend to imply quarrels between Fenrir and the spider. I wanted to put an emphasis on their respective “relationship” with the player (Baldur). Calling it betrayal was putting it more drastic and simplifying things: Fenrir presumably isn’t entirely content with its/his situation, even though it is treating Baldur better than its smith - so far.

Spoiler:

Killing Nianna in Helheim probably wasn‘t Baldur‘s final decision (yet). Fenrir apparently can “act” somewhat independently, based on reason. There‘s potential for (further) conflicts - primarily between Baldur and Fenrir - and (character) development.

As for the spider, it’s based on a blueprint Baldur reveived from the NORNs. As much as there is a probability for conflicts between Baldur and them - who knows what their agendas are/will be - the spider can be utilized by the NORNs. They designed it and Baldur depends on it (to access Cyberspace, for example).

Regarding loot, I was/am thinking of giving Fenrir a definitive shape/appearance (that of one specific, unique sword, for example). (Mandatory) dual wielding would mean that (only) the second weapon could be changed or replaced (by loot); one (the other, first) weapon slot would be permanently taken by Fenrir. Alternatively, turning Fenrir into a “special weapon” would give him a function similar to the spider, meaning that it’s not as much part of the (loot) equation.

Fenrir, in whatever approach, could be powered by player life (constantly draining that) or (Too Human’s) mana (replacement). It could level up based on usage (thus linked to lifetime life and/or “mana” consumption, defeated enemies etc.) or simply alongside Baldur. A lot of concepts/ideas can be combined here. It’s "just" a matter of balancing things.

Loot could still play a role for Fenrir itself, somewhat mediately: Modifications of Baldur or his other equipment could make it easier for him to control/use Fenrir, by reducing/suppressing detrimental (side) effects or supplementing positive ones. That would probably be (at least) close to your idea of affecting weapon attributes through loot/blueprints.

On a side note, Fenrir could also level up in stats (maybe range, speed, strength…) -- points that can be freely distributed.

[Guirec730]

I kind of like the idea of Fenrir draining player health, but at the same time, I'm not sure that it would necessarily translate to a fun experience if it happens all of the time...maybe certain sequences could feature it if the story worked it in somehow. If it was only one tense level of desperation that only lasted a few minutes, that could be enjoyable.

I recall in Shinobi (ps2) the weapon health drain (truncated by enemy kills) served to irritate as much as to invigorate.

[Sevens]

I kind of like the idea of Fenrir draining player health, but at the same time, I'm not sure that it would necessarily translate to a fun experience if it happens all of the time...maybe certain sequences could feature it if the story worked it in somehow. If it was only one tense level of desperation that only lasted a few minutes, that could be enjoyable.

I recall in Shinobi (ps2) the weapon health drain (truncated by enemy kills) served to irritate as much as to invigorate.

The thought is predominantly based on the premise of Fenrir as an optional, non-standard ("special) weapon, which is not in use as the main weapon. But yes, under certain circumstances, it might work in other concepts/modifications (unchaining Fenrir).

Shinobi is a pretty irritating game. Pretty unique, though, being able to defeat bosses with one hit. It even has "sliding" in it. I doubt I'd invest the time in playing through it again, however.

[Guirec730]

I tried playing it again last year while my 360 was on the fritz and it struck me as being a far less substantial and fun game than I recalled it to be. The music grates, the camera is mentally ill, and the story is absent. I keep it on my wall now only as a trophy of past conquest.

Triggering Fenrir as a special move or time-based boost that drains your health is kind of a cool idea, too. Is that about what you were getting at?

[Sevens]

I tried playing it again last year while my 360 was on the fritz and it struck me as being a far less substantial and fun game than I recalled it to be. The music grates, the camera is mentally ill, and the story is absent. I keep it on my wall now only as a trophy of past conquest.

Triggering Fenrir as a special move or time-based boost that drains your health is kind of a cool idea, too. Is that about what you were getting at?

That could be part of it. Could also be a more general concept: you face powerful enemies and sacrifice health while using Fenrir like you would use a normal weapon. Or you're at full health and can afford using it anyway. Maybe Fenrir could grant the player his power "free of charge" against certain enemies it particularly "dislikes". Or, if you meet certain (combat/combo) requirements the cost could be reduced. Fenrir-specific combat, kind of. Difficult to balance, though.

[prodigy1998]

or make it to where instead of having fenrir on a 'timer' and u losing as much health, it would make it better if u had a 'off' button that u could push to stop him early...or possibly tie him to ur health, so even though he's draining ur health, if you take a certain amount of damage , instead on him attacking other enemies, he'll return to u and defend u...

btw good idea about him disliking certain enemies...