Hate the Developer – Punish the Game: Dennis Dyack & Eternal Darkness 2

If you hate long, meandering, nigh-pointless internal dialogue that’s all shoot-from-the-hip then I’d say you should either run away or just scroll down, type TL;DR, and peace out.

The Promise

Shadow of the Eternals will be an episodic, horror adventure action game developed by Precursor Games (which is seemingly made up of Silicon Knights remains). It is the self-appointed spiritual successor to Eternal Darkness. Each episode (total of 12) will have roughly 2-4 hours of gameplay. The game is crowdsourced, and will incorporate content “created” by those who help fund the game. If you submit an idea on the forums, and the fans like it, the developers want to include it.

Denis Dyack says this new company is letting him focus purely on creativity and creation, rather than business.

The Past

I’m looking at the Precursor Games website right now. 6.58% of 1.5 million funded. 30 days left. No, I’m not considering pledging my support – but it’s not because I disagree with Dennis Dyack. Will Shadow of the Eternals reach its goal?

Probably. But not before we hear the rage of the internet. The comments on websites showing the trailer for the game, on IGN’s gameplay demo and just on forums here and there show well enough what the core temperature is. No one’s forgotten about that Kotaku article yet…

Many have already pointed out that the Shadow of the Eternals trailer we’ve seen appears to be quite similar to the secretly developed Eternal Darkness 2 demo described in that fateful article. Now, before I continue, I’m going to come right out and say I couldn’t give less of a fuck that Silicon Knights lied to their publisher and spent time developing this Eternal Darkness 2 demo instead of focusing on the well-known shitware that was X-Men Destiny. Sorry duders. The morality of that decision isn’t what I’m interested in really. Frankly I’ve worked in enough companies and known enough employees of bigger companies to know that this “strategic reallocation of resources” is nothing special, in this industry or the next. Is it right? No. Does it need to happen? Probably not. Is it a known issue? Yep. Did it *really* blow up in SK’s face? Oh yeah.

It’s really only the mistreatment of employees that rubs me the wrong way – but again, nothing in MacMillan’s Kotaku article, from leaving employees off of the credits to a creative director who miscommunicates, excommunicates, and simply doesn’t *get* what is going on with his team and how to best direct them – none of this is new. Or it didn't strike me as new. The issue of crediting in games is a big problem (there are a million stories, here's a famous one from years back), just like all the layoffs we’re crying about every few weeks. In his article MacMillan makes reference to another he penned about Team Bondi (L.A. Noire) – this is worth remembering; here too we have many employees left overworked, uncredited and angry. But of course no one is shitting on Whore of the Orient. Dyack, of course, unlike whoever heads Team Bondi, famously took to forums to defend his games on numerous occasions, and this definitely helped cement him as an unlikable, evil, Bizzaro Vinny. Oh and there was that lawsuit too…

Anyways. I’m not here to excuse Dennis Dyack. Forget that shit. I just don’t think he’s special. Him or his poorly run business. You think his wife was the only family connection working at a game company? You think he’s the only boss who bad mouths his ex-employees? You think he’s the only developer who thinks “artists are a dime a dozen”? What – did I die and wake up in a perfect world? What year is it?

Sigh.

Denis Dyack… Are you worth hating a game over? I know, in my heart of hearts, that Denis Dyack did not make Eternal Darkness. He was responsible for it, at least, but a game like that does not fall from one man’s fingertips. I feel the same way when I look at Shadow of the Eternals. Who really owns a game? The fans? The owner of the company? The man or woman who planted the idea seed? Or every hand that ever touched it, credited or not? Most importantly: can we have an Eternal Darkness without Dyack?

Looking at the (very short) list of Precursor team members, I can see they all worked on either X-Men or Too Human. Two worked on Eternal Darkness outside Dyack. If these aren’t the people to make the “right” sequel to Eternal Darkness, who is? And will we ever hear from them? Maybe this is a product of the demo being made so long ago but I’ll be honest and say Shadow of the Eternals does look like the sequel to Eternal Darkness, as hard as it is to describe what about it gives that feeling. Something about the character models?

Should You Support Shadow of the Eternals?

Maybe. The fact that it’s not through Kickstarter (no Canadians allowed damn it!) may scare you and the fact that Silicon Knights, er, Precursor, will keep all money raised regardless of whether they reach their goal or not, probably should scare you. That said, it does say somewhere on their website that if it is clear they don’t have enough to make the game they will refund donors. So! Chew on that?

One thing that’s confusing is this: why would subsequent episodes cost less to make than this first one? Again: the team is exceedingly small, and if this trailer we saw *is* the demo that was developed all those years ago… uh... see where I’m going with this? Maybe this 1.5 million is for hiring? Or is this money actually for development of the following episodes? Questions – so many questions! All in all I find it hard to believe that figure is an honest number. This is a growing issue for me with crowdfunded games. I don’t understand why developers aren’t more transparent – the answer, probably, is they just don’t need to be. Will Precursor ask for a million for each episode, making it a 12-15 million dollar game? That makes a little more sense to me.

Conclusions

As I gaze into the palantir on my desk I see two lessons, two futures, ahead of us. In one we learn the bastard cost of legacy. Had X-Men Destiny been developed by some joker like Brad Muir probably we would have all said “sure, makes sense,” and shrugged. But it wasn’t. It was made by Silicon Knights. If Too Human was a new IP from an unknown developer like, uh… Brad Muir… then – well you know! My point is Eternal Darkness is a 10,000 pound anchor and we, the fans, are the ship tethered to it. I guess that makes Dyack the storm? (What the hell am I even talking about now?) Ok, I remember: legacy is a bitch. The history of Silicon Knights has paid massive dividends to the developer, in terms of success, not really, but in terms of attention, yes. This whirlwind surrounding Shadow of the Eternals is largely incidental. The team that made Eternal Darkness is gone. Time has passed. Why should we believe the quality of that game would influence this one? It’s entirely likely this game comes out and is bad; it’s also possible this game simply does not come out.

But there is another future: what if Shadow of the Eternals comes out – and is good. What if the whole season is great? I love Eternal Darkness to hell. I want to want to play Eternal Darkness 2. And if I hear from all around that Shadow *is* a true successor – then what? Do I “forgive” Dyack (if ever there was something to forgive)? Or do I go back to the idea that the game was never his anyways; that its success or failure as a game, like the original, is not entirely up to him (poor management be damned).

But then – if that’s true – why all this writing in the first place? If the quality of a game is independent of the man who calls himself head honcho – why do I care about him at all? Why do I care about any one developer? Gut tells me that as fans, we want to root for a person. Like a director. Or actor. In games we have people like Ken Levine, Tim Schafer and Will Wright - but these guys barely make the games they make. The idea, or most of it, or part of it, is theirs. But the makers are many more...

So here's to you, game makers far and wide: programmers, artists, sound engineers, and the rest of you whose job positions I don't even know exist. Whether you worked for Silicon Knights, Team Bondi, Irrational or whomever: Sorry. Your hard work shouldn't be reduced to one person, either in a negative, or positive way. It's hard to see how this could ever change, but I, at least, will do my best to honor the team and the game.

Peace be with all of y'all.

They are asking people to fund them to make a gameplay demo that they are billing as "Episode One". They are hoping to use "Episode One" to convince Nintendo to fund development and turn the game into a full-fledged Eternal Darkness sequel. They are also hoping that fan reaction and donations will convince Nintendo this is a worthwhile venture.

They are being really shady about this process. They don't actually think they can complete the entire game from these donations or from the profits received from each episode. They want us to pay for their pitch to Nintendo. That's all this is.

@wrighteous86: This sounds exceptionally plausible..

@geraltitude: the fun part is that stuff about refunds? it was actually only added last night iirc. It wasn't there this time yesterday. So they're changing wording in their thing as the kickstarter thing goes. So yes, it does say right now that they will attempt refunds if they don't get enough ("attempt") but who's to say they won't change it a week from now?

I'm kinda confused. Are you defending Dyack? Are you for the project or against? I get your individual points, but I'm not sure they come together in a clear message. I know you don't want people to judge an entire development team based on one guy, but I feel like in this particular case, people have many legitimate reasons to be wary of this project. I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think Shadows of the Eternals is the soapbox on which you should be standing on.

The only creator that I will actively avoid the content he creates because of who he is and what he did is Roman Polanski. I can't think of any other creator of any medium that I would completely ignore their creations because of who they are and what they did. And, trust me, Dennis Dyack is no Roman Polanski.

I think when someone is asking for you to invest your money in them it's important to consider their past, whether you think it's business as usual or not. Is Whore of the Orient a Kickstarter campaign?

@jasonr86 said:

And Roman Polanski is no Hitler, but we still hold him accountable for his past actions. Dennis Dyack ain't no kiddie rapist. Running his company into the ground may be a less serious offense than underaged rape, but when he starts asking people for money, it very much becomes a prevalent detail that should be taken into account.

This isn't a boycott of an already existing thing. They are asking people to invest in their project that may or may not come into fruition. If Roman Polanski were asking you to fund his next movie, then there would be room for comparison.

@animasta:

Crazy!! (Also: hilarious). To quote an awesome scene from last Sunday's Game of T: "You know how suspicious that looks to ordinary folk, right?"

@minipato:

Think I'm just as confused as you are. Definitely didn't consider SotE as my soapbox! lol. Woops. I guess I'm not sure where I stand. On the one hand many of the abuses he is accused of are common malpractice (shameful as they are), and yes I do want people to stop judging games and companies based on one person; however, he is in a powerful position in this new company and it is hard to imagine the problems he created during Too Human and X-Men Destiny won't follow him here. But that's also assuming "those problems" were all his fault. See why I'm confused?

@jasonr86:

Yeah, this is fair. When I first wrote the blog I was going to bring up how we read books written by now-dead people who are racists/sexist in our eyes. What do you think about that? I mean. In 100 years, when Polanski is long dead, do you think people will be able to watch and enjoy his movies? And will that be more legitimate then then it is now? I'm not sure where I stand on this. I guess his situation is different, then, say, Joseph Conrad, but I think you know what I mean.

@oraknabo:

Nah, it's not. Honestly not sure what's going on with that game currently - I think I read recently the development is in trouble. I was moreso trying to compare two developers (McNamara in this case) who had a history of "treating their employees poorly," (at least according to some). I agree that the fact that SotE is crowdfunded makes the history of the developer far more important than if it wasn't, but I guess my counter to that is it's still not Dennis Dyack who is making the game entirely alone. So I should consider the history of *all* those involved in its development, not just him. Or something like that?

@geraltitude: @minipato:

There are certain things that really bug me. Professionally, in my job, I keep these things in check and think about the bigger picture. But in my personal life I don't need to have that much composure. What Polanski did, and that he ran away like a bitch, makes me not want to support anything he does. I could give two fucks about he crowd funding for this game. I'm speaking to the nature of him being a creator and creating a product that I as a consumer enjoy. Dyack hasn't done anything that bugs me to such a great degree. Polanski has. That's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned.

@jasonr86 said:

This isn't a question of morals, it's a question of trust.

People are reluctant to donate, not because they feel that he doesn't deserve the money, but because they feel he can't be trusted with it. He hasn't done anything to offend people morally (for the sake of argument let's say this is the case), but he has certainly shown people good reason to mistrust him. As a human being, he's not a bad guy. As a business man? Pretty bad. And he's asking us to go into business with him.

I'm not defending Polanski in any way and nor are they equal offenders. I'd just rather not have the comparison at all because it trivializes the matter in a cheap way and really doesn't fit the topic at hand aside from the fact that they are both creative leads in their respective projects. If Dennis Dyack had released a game and people boycotted it because they thought he was a terrible human being, I suppose your comparison would be more apt, but again, it's a question of trust not morals. Also standing next to someone shorter than you does not make you taller. I'd rather not have the "you must be this much of a shithead to ride the hate-train"-line be so dangerously low that we let everyone have a free pass as long as they didn't rape an underaged child.

Wait...they're seriously keeping all donations even if it doesn't reach it's goal? That's fucking gross. I was planning on getting this (if it succeeded) but I don't know. That's kind of fucked up in a lot of ways. Good luck, Dyack, you maniac.

Watching a studio like Double Fine struggle to get their crowdsourced project finished (despite their clear and obvious intent to not only do right by their funders but to use the resulting product as a springboard for their future success) has made me very wary of funding other projects by people who are promising much more ambitious projects on much smaller budgets. Throw Denis Dyack in the mix and my wallet gets the heaving shits.

Well, that's how my brain works dude. Take it or leave it. That's where I am.

@jasonr86:

Fair enough, I don't mean to go after you or anything. I understand where you're coming from and I oftentimes find myself thinking the same way. Bitching about videgames can be- hell it is a first world problem, but then again if we weren't so passionate about our hobby, none of us would be here.

Here's where I stand on this, from my own experience:

Dyack sort of reminds me of a man I once worked for. I was employed at a small start-up for about three years, and the first year and a half I was there, the company's CEO was both co-founder and CTO (Chief Technology Officer). So not only did he run the show, he was the show. He had command of both company operations and product design, and was considered an intelligent, if eccentric technology hotshot. The problem was that he was notoriously indecisive and fickle about what he wanted. For a full year and a half, the only product I worked on that we shipped was a beta platform (released prior to my hiring) set up in a scant few retail locations that was prone to breaking down and ultimately not picked up for wider distribution. However, he had a gift for getting money from investors, and actually scored a major investment from one of the larger technology companies for tens of millions of dollars. We also entered a manufacturing partnership with this company to develop and produce set-top box devices.

About a year and a half into my tenure there, however, the CEO was ousted by the board, as was the COO. He was also brought up on federal charges of stealing investment capital from the company for his own personal use. Use including but not limited to a variety of frivolous, incredibly expensive personal items as well as funding a separate start-up he was working on under the radar. (Sound familiar?) The long story short is that he was eventually convicted and is currently serving out a sentence in federal prison. As for the rest of us at the company, our second CEO came in and did everything he could to right the ship, repair investor trust, improve morale and reorganize efforts to get a product out the door so that we could actually start making money, as opposed to continue running on a treadmill that ultimately produced nothing.

Not that it really helped, because even though the company was turned around and we managed to successfully ship a product, the company ran out of money within a year and a half of the changeover. Employees were laid off (including myself), and it was forced to fold entirely a few months after that. CEO #1 pretty much boned us by spending all of our money and ruining our ability to court investors. When he gets out of prison, I have no doubt that he'll try to found another start-up, but anyone looking to invest with him at that point would have to be either naive to his past transgressions or a complete moron. It doesn't matter who he'd add to his team; he could put together the goddamn Avengers of technology development for all I care. He's proven himself supremely untrustworthy.

And that's where I stand with Dyack. It doesn't matter who he's teamed up with to make Shadow of the Eternals. He may not have served time in federal prison, but he's allegedly willing to siphon investment money for use outside of its intent, he's poor at managing projects, and was willfully ignorant toward the needs of Silicon Knights as a whole. He's not a man that I'd suggest anyone do business with and I hope that enough people are smart enough to stay the hell away from this campaign.

@mariachimacabre: Sounds like they've changed the wording on the site, but, yeah. It's nuts.

@rebgav: Totally. Kinda touches on something I've been wanting to blog about: games & crowdsourcing seem like both a great and terrible fit.

@minipato: I definitely devoted a lot of words to what is all in all not a super big deal - definitely a first world problem! But yeah, like you said (in not so many words): It's only cuz I love the shit out of games! Not to reiterate yours and @jasonr86conversation but I guess Polanski / Dyack are a wee bit apples and oranges. The idea is the same, but the crimes are pretty different.

@hailinel: Thanks for sharing that story. Pretty interesting..definitely in your case the CEO really paid the price. At least Dyack lied to publishers to make another game, and not buy himself a yacht or something. I read your post last night and have been laughing at "Avengers of technology" until now. I'm with you, mostly: it doesn't really matter who else is on the team when he core is rotten buuuuuut: do good games speak for themselves? I mean I'm definitely going to stay away from the campaign myself, but if and when the game comes out, will you play it?

@geraltitude: I think that depends on the quality of the game. I might be willing to play it, assuming that I feel it's something worth paying for. But then again, I might not. Dyack has a lot to prove.

I can't fathom any reason why anyone would give Dennis Dyack their money on faith alone. If the game ends up good, sure, I'm back in. But until then he has a whole lot to prove before I'm giving him a cent.

This is my stance on it as well. If the game ends up living up to the standards of the original, I won't hesitate to get it but I'm not holding my breath with Dyack. As you said, he's got a lot to prove and a reputation that preceeds him for sure.

Even if you thought this project and this team was the best thing ever, nobody should be backing this project; there is no deal here, they are asking you to pay full price $50 to get the chance of someday getting this game, they are asking you to take on all the risk for this project while they are taking none.

Getting involved in this is stupider than pre-ordering games.