Dyack hits out at so-called trilogies Related content
Too Human game info
Advertisement
Dyack hits out at so-called trilogies News
Xbox 360 PlayStation 3 News by Robert Purchese
Silicon Knights boss Denis Dyack reckons games or films grouped together posthumously are nothing more than marketing ploys.
Too Human, on the other hand, has been designed from the outset to be told in three parts, and Dyack believes there are very few games or films created in this manner.
"I'm very, very leery of these games that are successful and are suddenly called a trilogy when they're on the third one. Because that's just marketing," Dyack told MTV Multiplayer.
"Too Human, from when we started to work on the game for the 360, has been a trilogy. For the first game, the theme is discovery; the second game, the theme is revenge; the third game is enlightenment.
"We know exactly what's going to happen from beginning to end. It's planned out in such a way that there is without question a reason for the three parts. If there would have been a reason for four parts, we wouldn't call it a trilogy, we would call it a canto, I guess," he added.
Dyack goes on to question if Star Wars was ever conceived as a trilogy by George Lucas [DO NOT QUESTION THE MASTER - Dep Ed], but says he's very keen on the Lord of the Rings films and their approach.
"I not only love Lord of the Rings; I think what they did was a smart way of doing things," explained Dyack. "You really need confidence in the whole trilogy to do it. And that's sort of where things stand today. It's hard to get things off the ground. You have to have big buy-in."
And Too Human has had a big spend, with each episode said to cost around USD 80 million to 100 million.
Too Human is an action role-playing game based around Norse Mythology. It's futuristic, but is set long, long ago [Hmm, sounds strangely familiar - Dep Ed]. You play as god Baldur and go around bashing or shooting the snot out of enemies.
Central to its premise is co-operative play for you and three friends. This will let you team up after you finish the original campaign and go off and tackle baddies on a much tougher difficulty for much flashier loot.
It is certainly promising, and Dyack has previously said it will definitely be out this year. However, there is no news on when, which probably means it will be closer to Christmas.
Pop over to our Too Human gamepage to catch up on trailers, screenshots, and features.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Too Human on Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Too Human
Latest Features
-
Too Human Review [168]
-
Too Human Interview [12]
-
Too Human Hands On [84]
-
Too Human First Impressions [38]
-
Too Human Interview [156]
Latest Videos
The Eurogamer TV Show: Denis Dyack on Too Human [2] 19 August, 2008
Too Human - Iceforest [1] 7 August, 2008
Latest News
-
Dyack: 2009 cuts have been "staggering" [53]
-
Name of Silicon Knights game leaked [19]
-
Silicon Knights cuts 26 jobs temporarily [29]
-
Peter Molyneux picks apart Too Human [9]
-
Japanese charts: Afrika riding high [24]
Latest Screenshots
17 June, 2008 [27]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
Triggerhappytel
04/04/08 @ 13:56
0
That's right, because I'm sure the Too Human trilogy will turn out much better than, say, the Prince of Persia trilogy or the Jak & Daxter trilogy.
Shut up and let the game do the talking, Dyack. There's still a lot to prove with this one. |
|
Madafunkola
04/04/08 @ 13:56
0
Well, I'm very leery of complaining developers. It's just marketing for their sub-standard product...
|
|
That_Happy_Cat
04/04/08 @ 14:04
0
those lord of the rings chaps were sure clever... deciding to make a trilogy of films based on a trilogy of books...
|
|
The_Inquisitor
04/04/08 @ 14:18
0
The Matrix trilogy is a good example. You can even see the gaffer tape holding it all together if you look close enough.
|
|
squarejawhero
04/04/08 @ 14:39
0
Again, someone shoots their mouth off nearly idiotically in the games industry. Mainly because of the examples he chose... I was with him until he started on Lucas and LOTR, the first because yes, it was conceived as a trilogy (moreso) and the second, well, because it's bloody obvious. Duh.
|
|
Triggerhappytel
04/04/08 @ 14:43
0
"And Too Human has had a big spend, with each episode said to cost around USD 80 million to 100 million."
Oh my fucking God. I didn't read this part before; what a complete waste of money. At, say, $50 a pop average, that means each title is going to need to sell more than two million copies just to break even. Also, he can shut up as the original Star Wars story was conceived as a trilogy. Massive SW geek here. |
|
0
A. Where the hell do they get these budgets?
B. How the heck do you spend 80 million on a game that lasts for about 6 hours! I know that neither the programmers, artists or sound people are getting even a quarter of that amount so what is this nonsense. Office space doesn't cost more than a few tens of thousands per year at the absolute most. Sounds more like an excuse to pocket vast amounts of money by management types. |
|
The Bodybuilder
04/04/08 @ 14:54
0
Where exactly did EG get that "fact" about each episode costing almost 100mil? It's like a rumour that just grows into something else.
First we were told the first too human cost 50mil because of its loooooooooong-arsed dev time. Then it goes up to 80. Now almost 100. And now EG are reported EACH episode will cost almost 100mil?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 04/04/08 @ 15:56
|
|
0
"That's right, because I'm sure the Too Human trilogy will turn out much better than, say, the Prince of Persia trilogy or the Jak & Daxter trilogy.
Shut up and let the game do the talking, Dyack. There's still a lot to prove with this one." Calm down. He is right. Sure he is talking about a specific kind of trilogy, if you will so, a specific quality, but doesn't make it wrong. And surely most games aren't planned in detail to fit into a trilogy from the very first one on. That would allow for a whole new level of complexity, though.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 04/04/08 @ 16:33
|
|
absolutezero
04/04/08 @ 16:02
0
Its good to see that the comments section has once again completely missed the point of what he was trying to say and made themselves look as stupid as always.
|
|
Muddtallica
04/04/08 @ 16:36
0
Whilst I have had limited patience or interest in the words and works of Denis Dyack ever since Silicon Knights royally screwed up The Twin Snakes, I happen to think he's right on this one; it's become vogue these days to churn out a pair of quick sequels to any and every original IP these days and market it as a trilogy, regardless of whether or not the original warranted trilogy status, or whether or not the resulting series hangs together as a unit or not. Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are fine, in my book, and I'll even let the Wachowskis have The Matrix as a trilogy, even if it ultimately wasn't a very good one, but there's no way in hell you're ever going to get me to accept Shrek, Rush Hour, Spider-Man or even Pirates of the Caribbean as "trilogies"; a trilogy should be a single unit broken into three self-contained parts, not two needless sequels unconvincingly stapled on to an independently conceived original. Not even the games industry is free from this; I like them a lot as games, but Retro Studios are going to need to do a whole lot more if they think they're going to convince me that Metroid Prime was ever conceived as a trilogy. As uninterested as I am in Too Human, it does at least sound to me like this one might be a true three-parter in a sea of disingenuously presented shams, so I guess they deserve some credit for that...
|
|
WinterSnowblind
04/04/08 @ 17:00
0
I actually agree to an extent. The amount of games we have that end on cliff hangers these days is getting annoying, Gears of War has to be one of the worst offenders for this. It has next to no story to begin with, but made a very poor attempt at building up for a sequel at the very end. Bleh. On the other hand though, I didn't mind Halo 2's end, it was dramatic and we knew it wasn't going to completely end the storyline and after the first game, they had every right to leave it open like this, as George Lucas did with Episode V.
I can also appreciate Mass Effect, even though it was announced to be a trilogy the game ends just as you'd expect any other game to end, it brings the story to a conclusion, but creates a deep and involved enough universe that it's very easy for them to continue on from with the sequels. |
|
0
I remember being told by a school friend in the early 80s that Star Wars was charted out on a piece of paper as a 9 chapter story, and he went on to explain that Lucas had started the films at chapter 4 as he'd felt the first 3 chapters wouldn't be particularly enjoyable, as they had far too much going on to produce a coherent experience.
|
|
0
"it's become vogue these days to churn out a pair of quick sequels to any and every original IP these days and market it as a trilogy"
How else should you market your series if it happens to consist of three parts? According to the New Oxford American Dictionary a trilogy is: a group of three related novels, plays, films, operas, or albums. • (in ancient Greece) a series of three tragedies performed one after the other. • figurative a group or series of three related things : a trilogy of cases reflected this development. So if your series happens to end up consisting of three related parts, it's not a crime to call it a trilogy. |
|
0
Isn't setting out the themes for each installment right from the outset a bit of a spoiler.
Presumably something bad is going to happen at the end of part one that requires some form of revenge. Our protagonist will pursue said revenge vigourously in part two but find that he loses himself in the process. Part three will be a quest for redemption and eventual enlightenment. I'm not sure I even need to play the games any more. |
|
YourMessageHere
04/04/08 @ 19:19
0
He's using a good point to sell a shit game. Irrespective of dictionary definitions, in dramatic terms, there is a difference between a group of three works that were planned from the start to work together but also stand more or less independently, and created with this always in mind, and things like the Matrix, where they do the first one and if it sells, they go, "oh, well, actually, Trilogy!" and if not they can shovel it into the bargain bin. To me the first Matrix film is still pretty good, but the susequent two are obviously tacked on also-rans; there's none of the measured pacing and interconnected independence that to me makes something a "true" trilogy.
Then again, this is generally a plotline problem, and to be honest there are remarkably few games with plotlines interesting or important enough for this to be a problem, and even fewer that have them and are also parts of trilogies. Sadly him saying this neither does anything about the problem, nor does it mean his own trilogy isn't going to be rubbish for any number of reasons. Furthermore, $80millionlol. |
|
Muddtallica
04/04/08 @ 20:38
0
Les: OK, point taken; if we're going by the dictionary definition of "trilogy", which is actually fairly loose, then there's no real problem with this trend, but I just feel that it's become a loaded term in recent years, and is now thrown around disingenuously as if it DID mean something, as a way of legitimising cashcow-milkage. Like I said, there ARE some stories that have clearly been designed to be told in multiple parts, but when you hear the producers of Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean or Underworld trying to convince us that they'd "always envisaged" their lightweight nonsense movies as being the first part of a majestic three-stage opera, I can't help but feel like I'm being patronised. The entertainment industry is built upon afterthought, "me-too" cash-in sequels, and they don't even necessarily have to be a bad thing (look at Toy Story 2); I just wish that film producers and game developers would cut the sophistry, call a spade a spade and stop trying to use this "trilogy" buzzword to appear less mercenary than we all know they are.
|
|
AphoticCosmos
04/04/08 @ 21:49
0
When his own trilogy actually shows the light of day, considering that the first has yet to even be released, then he can have carte-blanche to trash talk other games. Until then he can shut the hell up!
I'd rather have Mass Effect TBH. Too Human just looks like it will utterly bomb to me, and nobody seems to give a crap about it. I was being considerate and giving fair thought to pre-ordering TH a few days ago, but seeing this unjustifiable tirade? You've lost my custom matey! At any rate, perhaps when you trilogy scores perfect 10s and sells 10s of millions of copies you can have a licence to talk. Until then, Mass Effect is the RPG king of trilogies at the moment - and there's no forseeable way you're going to beat it. |
|
0
Is this guy sniffing glue or something?
"Dyack goes on to question if Star Wars was ever conceived as a trilogy by George Lucas " It was original conceived as 9 episodes. ""I not only love Lord of the Rings; I think what they did was a smart way of doing things," They??? Since when was J.R. Tolkein a "they"? He does realise it was a series of books first, yeah? |
|
NthSimulachum
04/04/08 @ 23:29
0
I thought Lord of the Rings was released as a trilogy due to rationing...? Though the bafflement of the publisher was no doubt also a significant factor:
"We asked him for a sequel to The Hobbit, you know, delightful kid's tale, a nice chunk of sales. What the fuck is this behemoth?" 50's expletives though, no doubt. |
|
The Bodybuilder
05/04/08 @ 08:09
0
>"Perhaps Star Wars wasn't concieved from day one to be more films, does that make them any less good? No."
So where exactly did dyack say the star wars series was bad? Or are you just doing what 90% of people here are doing, forthing at the mouth and jumping to conclusion just to attack dyack? Grow up, people. |
|
0
I admit it doesnt look as good as Silicon Knights are saying it will be, there doesnt seem to be much special about it from the footage we've seen so far but I do hope the game will turn out to be another gem, call me crazy but the devs can talk up all the crap they like(aslong as its not promising things about the game that arent there) aslong as the game is good then Im interested... I like good games you see.
|
|
Grogmonkey
05/04/08 @ 10:11
0
The obvious point seems to be:
"Too Human, from when we started to work on the game for the 360, has been a trilogy." Which means, when it was started on the Playstation in '99 it wasn't a trilogy. And when it was moved to the Gamecube a year later it wasn't a trilogy. It doesn't take that much of a leap to assume that it's a trilogy now because it's cost them so damn much to make so far. Trilogies are essentially 'the same thing as before, but a bit more', which means less money on development times, tech and sandwiches. And quicker turnaround on subsequent titles, and a greater profit-cost ratio. So, Too Human has cost a bomb to make so far, and when development was shifted to the 360 they thought, "we need to stretch this out to fit three games so we can make back as much money as possible with as little investment (in the long run) as possible". Or is that just me being overly cynical? |
|
TheRealBadabing
05/04/08 @ 10:36
0
He is right about SW.
I remember an interview with Lucas soon after the original was released when he said that it was only called Episode IV in homage to the old matinées like Flash Gordon. That's why it had the scrolling text at the start too. Of course, when it became so successful, the back-pedaling started and marketing kicked in, so now most people believe the whole "masterplan" idea. Revisionist history at it's best. Not saying the results weren't good, just that Dyack is right that two sequels [yoda]do not a trilogy make[/yoda]. |
|
0
"So where exactly did dyack say the star wars series was bad? Or are you just doing what 90% of people here are doing, forthing at the mouth and jumping to conclusion just to attack dyack?"
No, he's just an idiot. His point is that marketing people are wrong in just calling every game series that consists of three parts a trilogy. There is no reason why they shouldn't, as the common definition of 'trilogy' is broader than his personal interpretation. Next he implies that trilogies that from the start were conceived as trilogies are better than a (game) series that happens to come to three parts because of commercial success. I would agree with him that a series that sets out to consist of three parts would have an advantage in creating a more balanced and coherent story but it's up to the writers to successfully execute it. It is by no means a given. Given his opinion that trilogies that were conceived from the start as trilogies are better than trilogies 'after the fact', when he questions whether Star Wars was conceived to be a trilogy from the start, he basically implies that the SW story was artificially extended and thus weak as a trilogy. |
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
