Too Human High res pics and combat video !!

High Res pics at IGN --> PICS

New Combat video --> Combat



It seems like X-play is going to put out a video every day this week .. Sweet ...

That' s not " combat" ...it' s a tradegy.

Sliiiide and slash!

Sliiiide and slash!

Sliiiide and slash!

Sliiiide and slash!

But wait! There' s more! You can jump up into the air to do finishing moves! Where did they ever get that idea?




[:' (]

And GoW picked that idea from some other game .

Shooters : Move -> find cover -> shoot / Throw grenade -> Move

RPGs : Move -> cast spell / slash weapon -> Move

So whats your point ?

Shooters : Move -> find cover -> shoot / Throw grenade -> Move

And that' s why the genre is stagnating...

There are certain games in a genre that do what they do well... there are certain that emulate the greats.

Look at Silicon, and Dyack' s track record. That' s all I needed to form an opinion of what I believe the quality of the game will be.

Actually Eddie!

Dark Legion was great fun, back in the old days, i dont believe you played it though since you werent born when i was playing it ;)

Legacy of Kain got an average 82% so its not bad

Eternal Darkness is rated at 90%

Twin Snakes is rated at 85%

Thats definetly not a bad track record.

The story in Too Human may turn out to be good, but with what we have seen from the combat it fails. I understand what you are saying about the FPS genre, but just look at Too Human' s combat. This is just a button mashing fest and you know it 2pac.

Animations are weak, character design is weak, but at least some of the environments look ok. I mean, come on now. With the amount of time SK has had to work on this game, along with the Unreal Engine they originally had to work with that apparently they are too inept to handle, this should have been a AAA game. Instead, we are going to get an ok game that will appeal to a certain crowd, but in the end will disappoint. I am sorry 2pac, but this is the truth. I was originally very excited about this game, and still was recently. But the more video I see of this game, I am being let down. This is more of a launch title for the 360 rather than a game that is coming out 3 years after launch.

Most wanted games:

Mass Effect
Assasins Creed
Crysis
Little Big Planet
Drakes Fortune
UTIII
Kane and Lynch
Heavy Rain
Alan Wake

I am not saying this game is a perfect 10 . None of us have played it . I dont think you can say that the combat is just a button mashing fest . IF thats the logic then God of war and DMC also belong to the same category . If this game was being developed by capcom or epic it wouldn' t have got half the shit it is getting now .

And i don' t get it how many of you are questioning Silicon knights ability . Yes it took them like forever to get this game out but as Vx pointed out they have made some better than average games . I also don' t understand the loyalty many of you have for Epic . Epic are no angels . They are out to do business like everyone else . I am not saying they did what Silicon Knights claim but I wont be surprised if they did and of course i wouldn' t blame them .

Dark Legion was great fun, back in the old days, i dont believe you played it though since you werent born when i was playing it ;)

Dude... Dark Legion was like, 1994/1995. I' m not that young.

I would' ve been in about K/1st grade then. I' ve played it, but only in the last couple years. Now, what I don' t have memory of (but, was still alive for) was Cyber Empires. As for Dark Legion, it might have been good for it' s time, but Sega was turning out some nifty stuff at about that time as well...

Blood Omen was good, but it was far from revolutionary. It falls under the " average" category as far as I' m concerned.

Eternal Darkness was a masterpiece, but there' s no doubt it had major flaws. The best part of the game was the solid plot, and frankly, the game was HP Lovecraft in action. I don' t attribute that particular success to them. Although, in all fairness, a sequel to Eternal Darkness is the only game Dyack and the Silicon Knights team could do to tickle my fancy.

Twin Snakes... well, I suppose if you really wanted to see what MGS looked like on a Gamecube. You' ve played it, haven' t you? Needlessly complex controls, combined with a re-vamped (for the worse) art style killed it for me. I' d frankly rather play the original.

What I' m trying to get at is that there' s nothing about Silicon Knights that has ever stood out as amazing, or set the bar for other developers, and with the exception of Eternal Darkness, none of their titles have ever truly impressed me. Given the amount of time Silicon has had to work on Too Human, about three years, you would think they' d have something more to show than " this might be alright" .

Edit: Oh yeah, and on top of all that, they' re going to be collaborating with Sega on a new project! Negative awesome points awarded to SK for that one!

werent you born in 91 eddie?

i know they arent a top developer like Blizzard, but they are one of the few independant developers not throwing out bad titles.

I dont think TH will be overly great, but if it isnt buggy, isnt boring, has a good storyline, a nice length ill get it, even if its just a 7, the xbox need more rpgs.

Im interested in this game..

Currently playing:
Korg DS 10 (ds) /  Metal Slug 7 (ds)
Rhythm Heaven (ds) /  Fire Emblem (ds)
Super Stardust HD (psn) /  Virtua Fighter 5 (360)
FSX (P

werent you born in 91 eddie?

Yeah. Correct me if I' m wrong, wasn' t Cyber Empires a ' 92 title?

I dont think TH will be overly great, but if it isnt buggy, isnt boring, has a good storyline, a nice length ill get it, even if its just a 7, the xbox need more rpgs.

See, that' s what I' m worried about. Look at the variation in the combat video 2Pac posted... it doesn' t exist. Repetitiveness turns into boredom, unless the gameplay mechanic itself is phenominal. That' s why there' s mountains and mountains of shovelware sitting beneath some of the best arcade, and other 2D games. Either your gameplay mechanic sunk, or it swam. Chances are, if the gameplay held for half an hour, it' d hold for much longer.

See, that' s what I' m worried about. Look at the variation in the combat video 2Pac posted... it doesn' t exist. Repetitiveness turns into boredom, unless the gameplay mechanic itself is phenominal. That' s why there' s mountains and mountains of shovelware sitting beneath some of the best arcade, and other 2D games. Either your gameplay mechanic sunk, or it swam. Chances are, if the gameplay held for half an hour, it' d hold for much longer.

Look at the combat in Oblivion Eddie!

I' m sure I' m not the only one who found Oblivion a little boring (but I' ll shut up on that, as I played it late in the game, and expected far too much.)

Before Oblivion, there hadn' t been much in the console world that did what it did, as well as it did. First person swordplay was nearly nonexistent in the field of consoles, and the games that did exist were done poorly.

The combat in Too Human on the other hand is a dime-a-dozen, and has already been perfected with titles like God of War, and explored in games like Prince of Persia, and Assassin' s Creed. It' s not done horribly from the videos, but what would compel me to go out and spend $60 on gameplay that has been done so well with titles I already own? It just doesn' t make sense.

See, that' s what I' m worried about. Look at the variation in the combat video 2Pac posted... it doesn' t exist. Repetitiveness turns into boredom, unless the gameplay mechanic itself is phenominal.

As for the repetitiveness of combat, I think it' s not the clear cut case many people make it out to be. A game is more than the sum of its parts. As long as the overall experience is engaging, and draws people in, then they' ve probably succeeded. Halo is a perfect example of this. The mantra for the entire bungie team throughout the Halo trilogy was " 30 seconds of action" , rinse & repeat x1000 until game ends. There' s no doubt that Halo is not innovative in it' s combat mechanics. It was repetitive and standard FPS affair, perfected hundreds of times before. Variation was limited. Yet it was successful because of the overall experience. Players got lost in the Halo world and it was a hell of a lot of fun. Same can be said for many other games (like Vx pointed out).

Now, I' m not saying Too Human is going to be the next Halo. My point is that repetitiveness does not equal failure. Is Too Human fun? I have no idea, I have not played it. Nobody has. I want to at least play it before I condemn it. Games that I thought looked great in the media ended up being average when I played them (AC for example), and vice versa (Crysis). Not sure why there seems to be such a stigma placed on SK and Too Human. They' re certainly far from being a bad developer.

Well said Unknown.

People should think of Too Human like Diablo.

As for the repetitiveness of combat, I think it' s not the clear cut case many people make it out to be. A game is more than the sum of its parts. As long as the overall experience is engaging, and draws people in, then they' ve probably succeeded. Halo is a perfect example of this.

With Halo, it was the entire experience that so many people found engaging. The shooting element was solid, had not yet been perfected on home consoles, and appealed to people for it' s relative ease of use, and simplicity. It also happened to have an engaging plot, fun multiplayer, and fantastic graphics for the time. Too Human and Halo are in nowhere near the same league, and I dislike Halo.

That' s the thing. How do you know Too Human is not going to be engaging? How do you know what the whole experience will be like?

Too Human is going for relative ease of use due to the right analog stick combat. It' s trying to have an engaging plot by tying in Norse mythology. The multiplayer looks to be fun by enabling 4 player co-op over Live. It' s graphics aren' t like Crysis, but they' re far from bad, environments look particularly impressive.

So what you listed about Halo applies to Too Human as well. I' m not trying to be poster child for Too Human. It' s not high on my list of games to buy. But there seems to be a lot of closed minded opinions about the game, without any real reasons. It' s easy to spot a crappy game, but from my perspective, it looks to have the components needed to make a game enjoyable, perhaps great.

That' s the thing. How do you know Too Human is not going to be engaging? How do you know what the whole experience will be like?

I don' t, but from what I have been presented, there is no reason for me to believe anything to the contrary.

That would be akin to saying that Ninety Nine Nights was going to be good, on the basis that the videos shown had not proven there weren' t deep gameplay elements.

A lack of evidence to the contrary does not make an argument, and consequently I have to form my opinion on what I see, not what I suspect may be.

Without a demo we have no way to form an opinion about the game save for the material that they have provided us with. Interviews, trailers etc...

Their website says...

In " Too Human(TM)," players are treated to a non-stop barrage of action powered by the seamless integration of melee and ranged firearms combat and fueled by breathtaking visuals previously not possible. Battles unfold in awesome scale as players engage in spectacular battles with vast numbers of enemies.

... " Too Human(TM)" will introduce combinations of weapons combat on a level that exceeds some fighting games leaving players in awe.

...yeah, sure it will Silicon, sure it will.

Early media looked fuc.k awesome. I even went as far as to say that i thought Gears, Mass Effect and Too Human were just as important, if not more important to Microsoft western strategy than Halo 3.

They' ve been working on it (on and off) since before ' 99, has moved from Playstation to gamecube to 360, and was originally (on 360) penned for 2006.

Say what you will of the gameplay being misconstrued as ' action' as opposed to ' RPG' but nothing explains why the character models, animations are art direction are so lame.

As far as i' m concerned, the best thing the game has going for it is the fact that it' s being published by Microsoft. The 4 player co-op could be interesting, but i doubt it' ll be enough to win me over.

Obviously i won' t condemn the game until i' ve actually played it, ...but that doesn' t mean i won' t be vocal about the aspects i feel could be much improved.

As for their previous games...

Each has had interesting aspects. None have been great.