Too Human Discussion Thread - Keep it Here (Or Face Suspension)!

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="mubarakibnumar"]

[QUOTE="heretrix"]I don't make it a habit on complaining about review scores, but I don't see how Alone in the Dark got a higher score than Too Human. mubarakibnumar

And i dont see how gears of war got a higher score than uncharted,ratchet and clank, and fire emblem. We should all remeber that reviews are OPINIONS.

I have also played all of those games, have you played Too Human?

Then why cant you see why Too human got what it did?

You bring up Gears, Uncharted, R&C and Fire Emblem. Aside from Fire Emblem, I own all of those games and have experienced them from start to finish. My opinion on those games are not second hand from a review, I have completed all of those games so I can pretty much attest to their quality or lack of it.

Here the thing, I disagreed with the R & C and the Uncharted scores. Uncharted is my favorite PS3 game so far and Ratchet and Clank is fun as hell and I enjoyed it thoroughly. Do I think they are better than Gears? Maybe, in certain aspects. But I fully understand why Gears is so highly regarded. People on my friends list STILL PLAY IT. I would never dispute the quality of any of those games, But I do dispute the quality of Alone in the Dark. The game sucked, period. Again, I played it..

I am enjoying the hell out of Too Human. Aside from my annoyance of the camera, the game's a blast to play.It deserved better. But I've felt that way other games reviewed here too. Whatever. I just wanted to put my 2 cents in.

IM on my 2nd play tru. This time as the Berserker, I picked the Champion the first time. The Berserker feels like a much better player. I am having more fun the 2nd time around, it took me till the 3rd level on the first play tru to get combat down. I really dont find the menus and weapon/armor upgrading a problem. I didnt even start using ruins or charms till my 2nd play tru. I have never played a game that scored so low EVERYWHERE and was this fun.lolkie_81

Dude, I didn't figure out the finisher moves until about 4 hours in. The game has a really deep combat system.

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="mubarakibnumar"]

[QUOTE="heretrix"]I don't make it a habit on complaining about review scores, but I don't see how Alone in the Dark got a higher score than Too Human. mubarakibnumar

And i dont see how gears of war got a higher score than uncharted,ratchet and clank, and fire emblem. We should all remeber that reviews are OPINIONS.

I have also played all of those games, have you played Too Human?

Then why cant you see why Too human got what it did?

Because sometimes there are reviews that are just to bias.

[QUOTE="mubarakibnumar"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="mubarakibnumar"]

[QUOTE="heretrix"]I don't make it a habit on complaining about review scores, but I don't see how Alone in the Dark got a higher score than Too Human. heretrix

And i dont see how gears of war got a higher score than uncharted,ratchet and clank, and fire emblem. We should all remeber that reviews are OPINIONS.

I have also played all of those games, have you played Too Human?

Then why cant you see why Too human got what it did?

You bring up Gears, Uncharted, R&C and Fire Emblem. Aside from Fire Emblem, I own all of those games and have experienced them from start to finish. My opinion on those games are not second hand from a review, I have completed all of those games so I can pretty much attest to their quality or lack of it.

Here the thing, I disagreed with the R & C and the Uncharted scores. Uncharted is my favorite PS3 game so far and Ratchet and Clank is fun as hell and I enjoyed it thoroughly. Do I think they are better than Gears? Maybe, in certain aspects. But I fully understand why Gears is so highly regarded. People on my friends list STILL PLAY IT. I would never dispute the quality of any of those games, But I do dispute the quality of Alone in the Dark. The game sucked, period. Again, I played it..

I am enjoying the hell out of Too Human. Aside from my annoyance of the camera, the game's a blast to play.It deserved better. But I've felt that way other games reviewed here too. Whatever. I just wanted to put my 2 cents in.

I have too human and I am enjoying it...the truth is just because I enjoy the game doesnt mean that the game is an excellent game. We are allowed to enjoy average games. Anyone that feels annoyed by this review is really childish. Do I agree with this review...Hell no. Personally i think it deserved a 7.5 but on the average the game is indeed AVERAGE.

Bottom line is average games are good.

I have too human and I am enjoying it...the truth is just because I enjoy the game doesnt mean that the game is an excellent game. We are allowed to enjoy average games. Anyone that feels annoyed by this review is really childish. Do I agree with this review...Hell no. Personally i think it deserved a 7.5 but on the average the game is indeed AVERAGE.

Bottom line is average games are good.

mubarakibnumar

the longer this thread gets, the worse it is for lemmings. everyone should already let this thread die... that's what i thinkSambaLele

IM on my 2nd play tru. This time as the Berserker, I picked the Champion the first time. The Berserker feels like a much better player. I am having more fun the 2nd time around, it took me till the 3rd level on the first play tru to get combat down. I really dont find the menus and weapon/armor upgrading a problem. I didnt even start using ruins or charms till my 2nd play tru. I have never played a game that scored so low EVERYWHERE and was this fun.lolkie_81

I started a Berserker as well, and he is a blast. I'm playing the first level through a few times on each character class to try to perfect targeting and fighting style and camera. I see the game as more of a play your class smart type of game instead of a DMC go in there guns blazing or you will get your butt cut off. After reading this thread it seems like people really wanted this game to fail, just like sometimes we love to see celebrities crash and burn, except in this case it didn't happen. It's a solid game that I'll be playing for a bit.

Gamertag:WIwahib2000

The game is a blast. Just got to the Ice forest and it's pretty hard. Story seems good so far, lots of questions to.

The combat system is deep and fun to play. Taking on 40 guys never felt so easy and fun. So far it's an easy 8 for me don't know how this game scored 5.5. :(

Just curious , is Microsoft running TV commercials in NA for this game ? I haven't seen one yet.

Just curious , is Microsoft running TV commercials in NA for this game ? I haven't seen one yet.

Nike_Air

Just curious , is Microsoft running TV commercials in NA for this game ? I haven't seen one yet.

Nike_Air

I don't think so and I don't know why. They could make a pretty epic commercial to sell this game.

[QUOTE="Nike_Air"]

Just curious , is Microsoft running TV commercials in NA for this game ? I haven't seen one yet.

BioShockOwnz

I don't think so and I don't know why. They could make a pretty epic commercial to sell this game.

I just hope this game does well because i want a sequel in the near future.

So a lot of the individual problems in the game can be found in other games from other genres that have been reviewed by other people Thanks a lot for that, it's been a great help.blushield

There was no anti-thesis there was a difference of opinion. Do you understand that reviews are opinions? Do you understand that people can think for themselves? This is very simple stuff and you seem to have a lot of trouble grasping it You seem to think that every revewer should have exactly the same opinion of every facet of the game. Do you have any idea how insane that soundsThey're game critics not the Zerg. It has never been the case that every reviewer has had exactly the same opinion of a game and that's not going to change because you're "upset"as for the gaminformer review, if there's an innacuracy in a review, there's an innacuracy. Like I said get in touch with Gameinformer and ask them to correct it. It's not the first time it's happened and it wont be the last

Most of them agree it sucks, some of them think it's alright. They agree on a a lot of the same issues,they differ on other issues. General consensus I'm not going to go over the whole people as indivisuals thing or reviews as opinions thing again because I've already tried explaining . It's simple enough for a child to understand and I should not have to repeat it again

once again Kevin Vanord's experiences tallied with my experiences of the demo although I can understand how they would seem alien to you seeeing as you have a "magical flawless" copy of the game and yes his opinon is a lot more valid then yours. He has proven himself to unafraid to cast a critical eye on games in the past. He is a professional reviewer who is experienced at reviewing games and (most importantly) he is not a crazed Too Human fanboy who is willing to overlook every single fault that the game has because of his own deep seated bias.

The story was crap. Unlike you I know a thing or two about Norse Mythology and I have high standards for storytelling in games. According to you "the cutscenes were awesome" despite some of the worst animation and dialogue in history so I think I'm going to have to discount your opinion there As for the rest of the game you could be right. It could turn out that the Demo was not representative of the the final game at all and they completely revamped it so that it wasn't mediocre garbage. It could turn out that there is a gigantic conspiracy amongst games journalsits to give this game lower scores than it deserves. It could turn out that the second biggest too human fanboy in this thread. Someone who is incapable of saying a bad word about the game and who's own impressions of the game directly contradict my own is telling the truth and the final game is the best thing ever.It could be, but I doubt it

It's pretty obvious that Kevin is at a certain age right now where "hardcore games" might not be so fun for him anymore.xsubtownerx

It's pretty obvious that Kevin is at a certain age right now where "hardcore games" might not be so fun for him anymore.xsubtownerx

It's pretty obvious that Kevin is at a certain age right now where "hardcore games" might not be so fun for him anymore.xsubtownerx

Not just Kevin, lots of review sites bombed it. I just dont get it, it has its problems but the gameplay is fun. I usually agree with gameinformer on reviews, this was a little low, I would give it a 7.5

once again Kevin Vanord's experiences tallied with my experiences of the demo although I can understand how they would seem alien to you seeeing as you have a "magical flawless" copy of the game

and yes his opinon is a lot more valid then yours. He has proven himself to unafraid to cast a critical eye on games in the past. He is a professional reviewer who is experienced at reviewing games and (most importantly) he is not a crazed Too Human fanboy who is willing to overlook every single fault that the game has because of his own deep seated bias.

blushield

This is the most obvious illustration of what I was talking about in my earlier post.

You're discounting Vandal's impressions of the final product because a reviewer's impressions agree with how you felt about the demo. Would you feel the same way if you enjoyed the demo, and Kevin slagged on the final game?

It seems to me like you're attacking Vandal's views solely because they disagree with your preconceptions of the quality of the final product, based on your experience with the demo. That doesn't make a lot of sense. You say that he is a Too Human fanboy who'd like the game no matter what, but you don't have any proof of that.

Isn't it possible that his opinion, which is different from the opinion you're expecting, is just as authentic and accurate as the opinion of someone who agrees with what you believe? That he honestly feels Too Human is a good game, not because of bias, but because he's actually enjoying his time with the game?

I can't help but be reminded of Metal Gear Solid fanboys discounting low-scoring reviews of MGS4 as flawed and invalid, long before any of them had hands-on time with the game, solely because those reviews gave a score outside what they expected.

I had a feeling Too Human will be the next gen Advent Rising. I wonder if they'll even continue to make it a triology or whatever.

Anyway, for those who finished the game, can you tell me how it ended, if your character lives or dies, etc. Don't forget to put spoiler tags.

So you admit my point? Thats great! We're making progress. It is clearly illustrated that dozens of other games have had similar problems to Too Human and have scored astronomically higher on this exact same site. Talk about lack of justification. Vandalvideo

THEY WERE DIFFERENT GAMES!

and I'm guessing that many of them were reviewed by different people. You can not make a direct, like-for-like comparison between two different reviews from two different people on two different games from two different genres.
blushield

Most of them disagree on what sucks ABOUT it, and that is the huge problem here. Just because they are all receiving low scores doesn't necessarily they all agree that the game is universally bad. It shows a divided industry on this game more than anything, and there is no general consensus.Vandalvideo

Gamespot says the story doesn't get interesting until the end so does Gametrailers. Gamespot thinks there are problems with the pacing so does Eurogamer. Gamespot says that the combat only works some of the time and often you'll find yourself swinging at nothing in particular so does gametrailers. Gamespot says that that the targetting system is broken and you'll often find yourself locking on to corpses or nothing at all so does 1UP, Gametrailers and Eurogamer. Gamespot says that the death sequeneces are too long so does Eurogamer. blushield

Again, read my posts

Once again, you have only played the demo. I, myself, have played the game quite significantly, going through the game many times over now. I never said that my game was magically flawless either .I merely pointed out that the problems these people seem so keen on pointing out are absent from my game. And no, his opinion on the game is no more valid than my own. It is an opinion for crying out loud. I have just as much of an educated opinion as him, with an indepth history of playing action role playing titles, even the esoteric stuff that people like yourself have never even heard of. And I am not some Too Human fanboy who is overlooking every single fault. I never said the game was perfect, I merely said it is not a 5.5.
Vandalvideo

At this point we should just agree to disagree and call it a day. We're getting nowhere and this thread is becoming unreadable

This isn't Doestoevsky, this isn't Proust. It's a mediocre action RPG that seems to have gained a fervent unshakeable following before it was even released.

blushield

Pretty much what Jeff Gerstmann says about the game in the latest GiantBomb podcast. The game alludes to an intellectual level which it just doesn't reach. Yes there are plenty of high level ideas and quotes laced throughout the game but in the end the game just doesn't do anything with them.

Anyway carry on the good work blushield.

*fist bump*

is too human worth getting i have seen the reviews and i am thinking nospartan-1777

When you have a free weekend to dedicate say 10 hours or so, give it a rental - that will take you about halfway through the game, and give you a better idea. Also, try out some of the different cl asses. It's love / hate - so playing it is probably the best way to know if you like it.

There is something wrong with gamespot when they give GTA IV a 10 and Too Human a 5.5. Jeffy G reviewed Kevin's Too Human review and gave it a ZERO...POINT...ZERO!!! Too Human isn't perfect, but going below 7 here makes them look like they wanted to slam this game. Kevin VanOrd or whoever could do a nit pick hit job on any game that gamespot drops on his desk, no matter how good it really is. Too Human....it's a VIDEO GAME!!!!! Gamespot, I trust your reviews less every day!joe_g_patton

The problem isn't just Gamespot, it's reviewing in general. The idea that one score can describe the game for every audience (any game) is absurd, and encourages "one game fits all" mentalities that don't exist in the real world. There is no "Every Gamer" in the real world.

Pretty much what Jeff Gerstmann says about the game in the latest GiantBomb podcast. The game alludes to an intellectual level which it just doesn't reach. Yes there are plenty of high level ideas and quotes laced throughout the game but in the end the game just doesn't do anything with them.

Anyway carry on the good work blushield.

*fist bump*

Hoobinator

I think Shawn Elliott of GFW tore apart Denis Dyack's delusions of grandeur in one of his blog posts, I'll see if I can find it

and thank you for the support hoobinator, you can see first hand the kind of insanity and fervent fanboyism I'm dealing with. People who made up their minds about the game and any negative reviews long before it was ever released.

edit: found it here . He sums it up pretty well in his opening post

"In plain language, 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."

hmmm.... sounds familiar

THEY WERE DIFFERENT GAMES! and I'm guessing that many of them were reviewed by different people. You can not make a direct, like-for-like comparison between two different reviews from two different people on two different games from two different genres.blushield

Gamespot says the story doesn't get interesting until the end so does Gametrailers. Gamespot thinks there are problems with the pacing so does Eurogamer. Gamespot says that the combat only works some of the time and often you'll find yourself swinging at nothing in particular so does gametrailers. Gamespot says that that the targetting system is broken and you'll often find yourself locking on to corpses or nothing at all so does 1UP, Gametrailers and Eurogamer. Gamespot says that the death sequeneces are too long so does Eurogamer

That's the thing though, you are. I've read through your profile and a few of your most recent posts and for the most part you seem to be pretty level headed and you seem to have pretty great taste. With 2 exceptions The first is Fallout 3 which you have an irrational hatred for. The second is Too Human which you have an irrational love for. When it comes to these two things you're basically just Subrosian lite You've been bashing reviews that have criticised Too Human before the game was even out. You are focusing on very small things (like a single difference of opinion between two reviewers) in an attempt to discredit every review every ever written for this game. You are blatantly lying by saying that reviewers dont agree on anything when it comes to this game. You are dismissing the technical problems with the game because "you haven't come across a single one". You are telling me that "invisible walls are part of the level design". You are telling what score THEY should give to a game in THEIR review. You are telling me that my own experience with the demo was wrong and a narrative in which a pacifist norse god with long blonde hair is turned into a bald space marine with robot parts is awesome. You can quote Nietzsche all you want (I know Denis Dyack does) and it's true I know sweet FA about "transhumanism" but you're not changing my mind about this game. This isn't Doestoevsky, this isn't Proust. It's a mediocre action RPG that seems to have gained a fervent unshakeable following before it was even released. At this point we should just agree to disagree and call it a day. We're getting nowhere and this thread is becoming unreadable

[QUOTE="joe_g_patton"]There is something wrong with gamespot when they give GTA IV a 10 and Too Human a 5.5. Jeffy G reviewed Kevin's Too Human review and gave it a ZERO...POINT...ZERO!!! Too Human isn't perfect, but going below 7 here makes them look like they wanted to slam this game. Kevin VanOrd or whoever could do a nit pick hit job on any game that gamespot drops on his desk, no matter how good it really is. Too Human....it's a VIDEO GAME!!!!! Gamespot, I trust your reviews less every day!subrosian

The problem isn't just Gamespot, it's reviewing in general. The idea that one score can describe the game for every audience (any game) is absurd, and encourages "one game fits all" mentalities that don't exist in the real world. There is no "Every Gamer" in the real world.

I agree with you on this. Another real issue is that the line between a 8.5 and a 8 isn't clear, It used to be worse when they went by .1's but... really it's hard to look at a game and say this one is clearly an 8.5 and this one is an 8... they need to do scoreless reviews or something.

I think Shawn Elliott of GFW tore apart Denis Dyack's delusions of grandeur in one of his blog posts, I'll see if I can find it and thank you for the support hoobinator, you can see first hand the kind of insanity and fervent fanboyism I'm dealing with. People who made up their minds about the game and any negative reviews long before it was ever released. here . He sums it up pretty well in his opening post "In plain language, 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."blushield

100 death achievement achieved... no joke... :lol: I've sat through 100 of those valkyrie cutscenes... :x Seriously, though, this game gets damn hard. And I stink at games, so whatever! :) Atleast I got an achievement for how bad I am. :DBioShockOwnz

100 death achievement achieved... no joke... :lol: I've sat through 100 of those valkyrie cutscenes... :x Seriously, though, this game gets damn hard. And I stink at games, so whatever! :) Atleast I got an achievement for how bad I am. :DBioShockOwnz

Being different games doesn't justify a video game website which prides itself on objectiveness to be partial to certain titles. If you want to be completely fair and impartial, they should, for all intents and purposes, reduce the scores of other games for the same reasons they are claiming Too Human is such a bad game. Vandalvideo

How many times do I have to type this?

You can not make a direct comparison between different games in different genres that have been reviewed by different people. For example Game A and Game B might have framerate problems. But depending on the type of games they are, the extent of the problem in each game and the people reviewing them they may have a significant or negligible effect on the score.

Too Human is not GTA 4. Too human is not Lair. It shares some problems with both of them and it has some problems of its own. Because it is a seperate game you can not make a direct comparison with any other review of any other game.

NOW READ THE TEXT ABOVE BECAUSE I DO NOT WISH TO TYPE IT AGAIN.

And I agree. The story at the beginning isn't great, but after the second act it really starts to pick up. For the second half of the game the story is extremely compelling. I never had a problem with swinging at nothing. Maybe its because I was able to adapt to the system, but it has gotten to the point where, by level 30, I never once touch the ground, and the targeting system gives me no problems. And the death sequence is only 10 seconds, give or take five, as illustrated by the Giant Bomb review. Its a welcome shift from the game over screen that takes you out of the game for a long time and forces you to reload, taking much longer than 10 seconds.
Vandalvideo

I'm not, and once again you illustrate a general lack of understanding of my stances. I do not have an irrational hatred for Fallout 3. As I've stated in every last Fallout thread, "I have complete faith in Bethesda to produce a good game. I will buy this game, but that does not excuse the fact that Fallout 3 is not Fallout". I never attempted to say Fallout 3 was a horrible game.
Vandalvideo

I'm focusing on large trends in reviews to point out the problems. Misinformation on the part of reviewers, a general lack of understanding of gameplay mechanics, and an overreaction to some minor problems in the game pervade every last review out there. I'm using precedents to tell them, if they want to follow what THEIR OWN REVIEW FAQS state, then this is the score they should be giving it. The story over the course of the game greatly evolves. It isn't as simple as you may initially think. It struggles with some extremely complex ideologies over the course of the game. Oh, and I didn't quote Nietzsche, I quoted Walter Kaufmann.
Vandalvideo

How many times do I have to type this? You can not make a direct comparison between different games in different genres that have been reviewed by different people. For example Game A and Game B might have framerate problems. But depending on the type of games they are, the extent of the problem in each game and the people reviewing them they may have a significant or negligible effect on the score. Too Human is not GTA 4. Too human is not Lair. It shares some problems with both of them and it has some problems of its own. Because it is a seperate game you can not make a direct comparison with any other review of any other game. NOW READ THE TEXT ABOVE BECAUSE I DO NOT WISH TO TYPE IT AGAIN.blushield

That's fine those are all your opinions, and you're entitled to them. Other people have different opinions. Other people would give the game a different score than you. that's also fine. I think the demo was garbage and I have no interest in trying the full game for the reasons I have outlined in this thread. That is also fine

Once again you have no right to question the skill of reviewers. Nor do you have any right to question their opinion of a game or how serious they think the problems with said game are. Taken from their review policy We Consider Games On Their Own Merits" The People Who Write GameSpot's Reviews Are All Different" You've been hyping this game long before it was out and doing some pre-emptive damage control (including this whole 1% rubbish) . You've been criticising reviews for the game as soon as they started coming in long before you ever played the final version. Go back in this thread and read your posts, some of them are ridiculous. go back and read some of your recent too human posts (which i've just done). They stink of desperation and are no different than the desperate ramblings of fanboys before the release of other notable flops. You should know better

You continue calling me a fanboy, when I've made it abundantly clear that I'm about as impartial to this 360 action role playing game as you can possibly get. I don't have any predispositions towards this game, except maybe being an objective gamerVandalvideo

Why no 9.0?

Its fine to say you didn't like the demo, but as we've poitned out time and time again, the demo doesn't accurately represent the final game. The final game is much more complex and involved and changes dramatically over the 50+ hours of gameplay, which is said to go up to 100hours. You have played a very small ammount of the game, practically insignificant ammount.

According to the information we do have, the combat system does drastically change in every way, shape or form. Not to mention we have no idea how the dynamic camera system will work in the later levels of the game. You're welcome to have your own opinoino n the graphics engine, I'm not going to sit here and mindlessly debate about "LAWL TEH GRAPHICS". The fact of the matter is that the demo does not accurately represent the finished product, and you can't make sweeping judgements based on playing less than 1.6% of the entire game.

He called them *misinformed*. A lot of the people complaininga bout this game are using the wrong yardsticks. Its not an action game like God of War. Its an action role playing game in the veign of Diablo, Titan Quest, and Dungeon Siege. You can't expect completely robust combat like God of War. Not to mention Subrosian clearly pointed out that, as the game progresses, the Combat system gets even more indepth.

That was a painfully average review. It seems like all the people who have reviewed the game so far haven't really given the game a chance. GI saying the game lacked a menu which it doesn't, the horribly biased 1up review, and now this English magazine.Vandalvideo

[All of these posts were made by you before the release of the full gameblushield

Ugh.

After days of play, and about 8 hours each day, I have to say this game is flat out "not very good."

Wanted to love it.

Couldn't.

Oh well.

After finishing the games rather short story being level 30 I still stick to my 6.5 score that I would give it. people are too easy to forgive the glaring flaws in this game and they easilly grate on the nerves enough for someone to just slam the controler down and say FORGET IT I'M DONE WITH THIS!!! 5.5.

There are maybe 10-20 enemy models in the game and maybe 3 classes with maybe 4-5 monsters per class. Troll Goblin Undead. Boss battles are clunky due to the wonky targeting system with most bosses always having multiple tarets to damage attacking the dead target does me little good or somehow not hitting the target while I wail away at it doesnt help either. Repetative levels to the max, it's common for this type of game but even Diablo kept it fresh by having more than 4 coridor types to walk through. the whole internet universe kicks itself by not leting you leave it after you have walked in, slowly walked to your new rune you can unlock because you learned to walk across water, then you slowly walk back to the begining. The meele controls could use alot of work and I'll leave it at that, overall it was a fresh change but felt rather clunky and no different than mashing a button over and over it's a "Stick masher" Voiceovers were rather silent compared to the blaring music and sound effects with no discernable option to turn the BGM or SE down to hear the onscreen banter better. Constantly changing weapons, even in games like Diablo the game did not assault you with tons and tons of armour to wade through an slugish menue screen to see the weapon you just spent time puting runes into has been outclassed withing 10 minutes of fighting like come on! the whole Hub area iseems unfinished *or other areas will be unlocked into the trilogy* That blasted valkery is going to be the death of me, wich brings me to the next problem...Why is there no way to heal unless your a specific class or health orbs? it's rather frustrating to be beaten to a inch of your life and suceed in destroying the swarm of enemies but due to your lack of health regenerating skills your boned as soon as you meet the next goblin or find yourself posioned to death. The charm system is a tad fubared where the stronger runes need the lower runes just to activate with some having oddball requirments like "Kill this boss" or "Activate this many well" What if I already killed them or don't have that many wells to open? While I assume in the new game +esk mode you can kill any boss as many times as you want, these should all be obtainable goals within the main game. Scaling enemies just doesnt give that satisfaction when your having issues killing the same troll that you killed 30 levels ago. I could go on but I digress that they are many many issues with the game itself but makes up for it in other ways. But I can see how someone would give it a 5.5 I only have to think it odd how offended some people seem to be by this objective score that is only one persons opinion.

The game suffers from trying to be too much like Diablo, but also suffers from trying too hard to be different from the whole of such games.

The few things I loved about the game was

-The story whenever it trickled out

-The voiceovers were phenominal

-Character design for the other Aeiser besides Baulder is very good especially Thor

-They did a good job mixing Norse mythology with tech.

So again Too Human a good game, that tried to be different but fell flat, and failed to live up to it's expectations or even cast a shadow on the other older and still superior games in the genre. I personally think games should be seperated into genre and scored according to genre not just system. I'll stop trying to convince people who are hell bent at questioning someones opinion it's beyond me how you can get so worked up or defensive about it either way.

Yeah, I think I'd be easier on it if it weren't in development for so long, if it wasn't by one of my favorite devs (Silicon Knights), and if it wasn't a 1st party published title. It had 3 big things going for it, yet we got this. Now, don't get me wrong, I like this game a lot, and I'll play it as different classes, but it's not what it should've been. Seriously, this is the best Silicon Knights can do with so much time and Microsoft backing them? I'd LOVE to be able to say this game's a 9-9.5, but it's just not, sadly. The game has bugs, a lot of them. Also, sometimes, you'll leap in the air to jack a fool, then you'll get stuck up there for a little while, because there's enemies swarming you from below. The level design and swarms of enemies make up for a VERY frustrating experience that made me want to bash my head against the window more than a few times. And onto the levels themselves. The levels are WAY too long and drawn out. They just go on and on. There seems to never be an ending to each level. It's corridor after corridor of floods of enemies swarming you. That's all it is. For a long time in development and a big publishing partner backing them, this game should've had like 10 30-40 minute levels instead of 4 long repetitive levels.

Still, even with all the negative criticism, this game keeps me coming back like an addict to their drug dealer. There's something here that pushes me to play in an obsessive manner. A 7.5 is about right. I hope the sequel does a MUCH better job, because a 7.5 for such an anticipated and hyped game is downright criminal, and it's a shame that that's all it deserves. There's some moments in the cutscenes where it hints at brilliance in storytelling on an emotional level (won't spoil it), then you get to the end. It feels more like a prequel instead of a true start of a new IP.

With all this said, it's still a good game, but it could've been sooo much better.

I think alot of the criticism is the fact that it had such high expectations, and fell very short of them. when people say "Lulz kung fu panda got 6.5" No one was expecting much from the game were they? it somewhat lived up to what was expected a shallow lulz game.

Too Human droped the ball on so many things it was just sad, glaring bugs like droping through the floor or geting stuck just should not exist in games this generation.

I think alot of the criticism is the fact that it had such high expectations, and fell very short of them. when people say "Lulz kung fu panda got 6.5" No one was expecting much from the game were they? it somewhat lived up to what was expected a shallow lulz game.

Too Human droped the ball on so many things it was just sad, glaring bugs like droping through the floor or geting stuck just should not exist in games this generation.

Jynxzor

A paid reviewer should never, ever judge a game on high expectations, tons of hype, or long development. They should judge the game for what it is. Btw, I never fell through the floor, but I experienced other bugs, as I stated in my previous post.

Yeah, I think I'd be easier on it if it weren't in development for so long, if it wasn't by one of my favorite devs (Silicon Knights), and if it wasn't a 1st party published title. It had 3 big things going for it, yet we got this. Now, don't get me wrong, I like this game a lot, and I'll play it as different classes, but it's not what it should've been. Seriously, this is the best Silicon Knights can do with so much time and Microsoft backing them? I'd LOVE to be able to say this game's a 9-9.5, but it's just not, sadly. The game has bugs, a lot of them. Also, sometimes, you'll leap in the air to jack a fool, then you'll get stuck up there for a little while, because there's enemies swarming you from below. The level design and swarms of enemies make up for a VERY frustrating experience that made me want to bash my head against the window more than a few times. And onto the levels themselves. The levels are WAY too long and drawn out. They just go on and on. There seems to never be an ending to each level. It's corridor after corridor of floods of enemies swarming you. That's all it is. For a long time in development and a big publishing partner backing them, this game should've had like 10 30-40 minute levels instead of 4 long repetitive levels.

Still, even with all the negative criticism, this game keeps me coming back like an addict to their drug dealer. There's something here that pushes me to play in an obsessive manner. A 7.5 is about right. I hope the sequel does a MUCH better job, because a 7.5 for such an anticipated and hyped game is downright criminal, and it's a shame that that's all it deserves. There's some moments in the cutscenes where it hints at brilliance in storytelling on an emotional level (won't spoil it), then you get to the end. It feels more like a prequel instead of a true start of a new IP.

With all this said, it's still a good game, but it could've been sooo much better.

BioShockOwnz

I was torn between a 6.5 to a 7.5. There is so much wrong with the game, but for some reason its fun for me. So I settled on a 7.5. You see what I meant about the level design, the story could have been told better as well. I think having to rebuild there graphics engine had alot to do with it.The idea is great but poorly played out.

why are there people on hear who haven't played the game justifying gamespots score?, you can't justify kevins review if you have only played the demo, that's just ridiculous, i admit i can't defend too human yet cos i can't get it here in the UK till friday, but if i was to take the same line as a lot of people on here and score the game based on the demo i would give it an 8.5. basically if you have not played the FULL game you have no right to agree/disagree with kevins score.delta3074

There are only a few people that post here, that do it honestly. Most people are trolling 99% of the time on SW. I would like to think that I always try and give a honest opinion.

And all those posts clearly illustrate that I had no vested interest in protecting the game.Vandalvideo

• He should decide what score Too Human from Gamespot even though someone else reviewed it
• He has a better understanding of Gamespot's review guidelines than seasoned reviewers who work for the site
• If a game OTHER THAN Too Human has SOME of the same problems and it gets a higher score than it then reviews cant be trusted
• If that same game was reviewed by a completely different person, than that's further proof that reviews cant be trusted
• Too Human was "not treated fairly"
• If two seperate people working for two seperate websites disagree on one aspect of the game then their reviews can not be trusted
• The people who reviewed the game for different sites can not agree on anything (this can be disproven in under a minute)
• People who gave too human a bad score or don't like it "don't know how to play game" or "never gave it a chance"
• Every single problem with Too Human is "minor"and should not effect the score much
• The majority of well known sites/magazines (Edge, Eurogamer, Gamespot, 1Up, EGM, Gameinformer, Eurogamer, Gamespy) giving this game scores less than a 7 does not equal a critical consensus. In his own words "Just because its getting bad reviews doesn't necessarily mean the gaming review establishment agrees"
• A demo, which is a playable section of a game created to give people a taste of a game should not be used to by people to judge said game
• If you play a demo of a game that sucks and the game gets bad reviews you should buy it or rent it
• Too Human (a game in which you can glitch through the floor) doesn't have any kinds of game breaking elements
• Cutscenes, animations and voice acting like this are "perfectly fine" (WARNING HILARIOUS CONTENT!!)
• "Everything the REVIEWERS THEMSELVES have said has been contradicted by other review sources" (lol)
• The story in which Denis Dyack reimagines a Norse God who is a Pacifist with long blond hair as a bald space marine who fights robots in the future "was genius". If you don't think so it is because you didn't read up on transhumanism like Denis Dyack told you to (transhumanism being "human enhancement")
• invisible walls "are part of the level design",the death sequence is "a welcome shift from the game over screen", he "never had a problem with swinging at nothing" and he "never experienced any of the technical problems with the game"