Speaking to Gamerscore Blog, Silicon Knights head Dennis Dyack spoke to the recent revelation that Too Human would support two players in co-op. As the game was originally touted to have four player cooperative play, the news was upsetting to many would be fans. When asked what prompted the decision, Dyack noted, "it really came down to the gameplay and what's the best experience we could possibly make for the gamer." He added further that four players was "really chaotic" and that the team decided that limiting co-op to two players was "just the right thing to do" when it came to balancing the game and making it fun.
We're sure that this explanation won't dull the pain of those who were looking forward to hacking and slashing with three friends, but hopefully Too Human will be a better game as a result.
It's really a shame, 4 player would have been great. There are more than a few games that have pulled it off and done it well so I find it hard to believe a game that's been in development for over 10 years can't get it together.
I understand his point, but this is probably going to mean me and my 3 friends (who were really looking forward to it) will be passing on this game because we've been waiting for a 4 player co-op game ever since we stopped playing Chromehounds.
Speaking of which a Chromehounds sequel would be fantastic. I was trying to get my friends into Quake Wars but so far only one has bitten, it is a lot of fun though.
FYI, Battlefield Bad Company is pretty good...at least as far as the demo goes. Not exactly co-op but at least you can work together as a team with your buddies.
What this sounds like to me: "We couldn't get the performance we wanted having 4 players in co-op so we made a compromise." I could see 4 player co-op getting somewhat chaotic but if the game was properly designed to handle 4 players it shouldn't be a problem.
Anyway, I've always been a bit skeptical about this title considering its troubled development history, but at this point its almost completely off my radar.
Based on the videos, when a lot of enemies are on screen at once (2 trolls bashing the ground, 6 or 7 goblins, and some ice enemy) I was already confused, Throw in 3 friends power sliding and shooting bullets everywhere and I could see how perhaps the game play was more just jam buttons until everything is dead. The gameplay looks fun, but without finesse it wouldnt be rewarding.
Too human has been in development for 10 years?! dang, i have dieing for a good action rpg, im glad im just now hoping on the fanboy train...the wait would of killed me...i mean waiting for Diablo 3 is hard enough.
I agree.. but there's 1 problem. Since it's 2 player co-op, what's the point of leveling the healer class?... I mean, you're only going to go around, doing nothing, and just curing the guy in front of you. Just doesn't make too much sense to me.
I think going for 4 player to 2 is one of the worst decisions they could ever make. I have 10 friends who were going to buy the game. Thats not including me. We were all talking about how we would all play together changing groups and such. To see how they all played. Now none of us are going to buy it. Well at least you know they weren't thinking about the money and were really trying to "perfect" gameplay. But I'm 80% sure they just cut their sales by half. Someone will by it. All his friends will see him play it and go....."That would have been awesome with 4-players." $100 says they will never finish the second game.
Wow to this day no one has yet to make an rpg that was as good and as much fun for more then two people then Diablo II 9 years ago.. are you kidding me?
{ Jun 4th 2008 at 4:45PM } 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Neuromancer @ Jun 4th 2008 4:58PM
It's really a shame, 4 player would have been great. There are more than a few games that have pulled it off and done it well so I find it hard to believe a game that's been in development for over 10 years can't get it together.
Jonman @ Jun 4th 2008 5:03PM
I'm going to give Dyack the benefit of the doubt by saying "better a good 2-player experience than a crap/muddled/gimped 4-player experience".
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying somewhat though...
Trogdor @ Jun 4th 2008 5:22PM
I understand his point, but this is probably going to mean me and my 3 friends (who were really looking forward to it) will be passing on this game because we've been waiting for a 4 player co-op game ever since we stopped playing Chromehounds.
JSBeckerist @ Jun 5th 2008 1:06PM
What about Halo? Or you mean local coop?
Neuromancer @ Jun 4th 2008 5:24PM
Speaking of which a Chromehounds sequel would be fantastic. I was trying to get my friends into Quake Wars but so far only one has bitten, it is a lot of fun though.
Trogdor @ Jun 4th 2008 7:39PM
FYI, Battlefield Bad Company is pretty good...at least as far as the demo goes. Not exactly co-op but at least you can work together as a team with your buddies.
DM89 @ Jun 4th 2008 6:58PM
Damn, I was hoping for four players. Oh well, so since it's limited to only two players, should I buy this or Fable 2 first?
vanhelsingh @ Jun 5th 2008 12:36PM
fable 2
Noxat @ Jun 4th 2008 7:15PM
What this sounds like to me: "We couldn't get the performance we wanted having 4 players in co-op so we made a compromise." I could see 4 player co-op getting somewhat chaotic but if the game was properly designed to handle 4 players it shouldn't be a problem.
Anyway, I've always been a bit skeptical about this title considering its troubled development history, but at this point its almost completely off my radar.
Dirty @ Jun 4th 2008 9:55PM
Based on the videos, when a lot of enemies are on screen at once (2 trolls bashing the ground, 6 or 7 goblins, and some ice enemy) I was already confused, Throw in 3 friends power sliding and shooting bullets everywhere and I could see how perhaps the game play was more just jam buttons until everything is dead. The gameplay looks fun, but without finesse it wouldnt be rewarding.
Troy @ Jun 4th 2008 10:52PM
Too human has been in development for 10 years?! dang, i have dieing for a good action rpg, im glad im just now hoping on the fanboy train...the wait would of killed me...i mean waiting for Diablo 3 is hard enough.
Chris Paladino @ Jun 4th 2008 11:07PM
While I am NOT saying I would prefer 2-player co-op to 4 player co-op, having played Too Human, 2 player seemed the correct amount.
Arnon @ Jun 5th 2008 1:01AM
I agree.. but there's 1 problem. Since it's 2 player co-op, what's the point of leveling the healer class?... I mean, you're only going to go around, doing nothing, and just curing the guy in front of you. Just doesn't make too much sense to me.
Deck @ Jun 5th 2008 12:22PM
I am not too worried with this. Though 4-player would have been an awesome feature...two player should still be a ton of fun.
As someone pointed out, a healer class is rather non-existent now but ahh well...I can't wait for Too Human! It should bring lots of fun!
So many RPGs this year, its great!
Lomas @ Jul 14th 2008 6:59AM
I think going for 4 player to 2 is one of the worst decisions they could ever make. I have 10 friends who were going to buy the game. Thats not including me. We were all talking about how we would all play together changing groups and such. To see how they all played. Now none of us are going to buy it. Well at least you know they weren't thinking about the money and were really trying to "perfect" gameplay. But I'm 80% sure they just cut their sales by half. Someone will by it. All his friends will see him play it and go....."That would have been awesome with 4-players." $100 says they will never finish the second game.
Joe @ Jul 30th 2008 3:42PM
Wow to this day no one has yet to make an rpg that was as good and as much fun for more then two people then Diablo II 9 years ago.. are you kidding me?