PDA

View Full Version : A small revelation



Jerion
25th Aug 2009, 07:18
I did some thinking today in my time alone, and I had a small revelation about DX3. I wanted to share it with you folks.

----

DX1 worked so brilliantly because of how it tied everything together. There's an incredible balance (http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t191/Zeoman1001/jenga.jpg) inherent in that- even though the individual components ranged from "solid gold" to "decent", how they all came together is where that game really shines. The problem as I see it, with returning to Deus Ex in these times (as 3 is doing) is that a number of those components haven't aged well at all. The AI, for instance, are laughable by today's standards, and despite the amazing atmospherics they produce, so are the visuals. If you change, update, any one component, it throws the entire balance off, so everything else has to be updated as well. That means that Eidos Montréal can't ship Deus Ex 1 with a new story. If they did that, they would be laughed at. So they have to modernize certain parts- the AI, visuals, and audio, namely, as well as produce a new story. In doing that though, they have to alter everything else to keep the balance that keeps the game feeling like Deus Ex present. IW almost succeeded at keeping this balance- it failed though, because of a couple very poor choices regarding select components (i.e. the loathed uni-ammo). DX3 has a much larger gap, in terms of graphics and AI capabilities to bridge than IW did, so some of the alterations are going to have to be more drastic. At the same time, to generate more sales to offest the incredibly higher cost of producing it, there has to be some small pandering to the mainstream crowd. That means adding in some things that are accepted as common place these days, like the mostly-loathed Health Regen system. Fortunately, it also means that some other mechanics can be kept from the first game, and only altered slightly or not at all. I suppose that Deus Ex 3 is a grand question, of sorts. It is a question, the answer to which will likely impact the course of gaming over the next several years.

The question is, very simply, "Can the brilliance and dedication of a game from an older generation be matched today?"


----

Just my $0.02.

-K

Daedalus.
25th Aug 2009, 07:27
Just my $0.02.

-K


Thank you for your time, sir.

Yes, it can be matched and overcome with great effort, forethought, adaptation, creativity, and persistence.

Good Luck to you all. You must do what no one else has done in order to succeed.


PS. Do you have $0.02 more?


.

Irate_Iguana
25th Aug 2009, 08:31
The question is, very simply, "Can the brilliance and dedication of a game from an older generation be matched today?"

Most likely not. The reason for this is simple.


At the same time, to generate more sales to offest the incredibly higher cost of producing it, there has to be some small pandering to the mainstream crowd.

This has been the death of modern gaming. This pandering to the mainstream. Instead of just wanting to make a good game publishers are looking for ways to make more money. They think that the best way to do this is by making games for very stupid people. I'm not saying that these people are actually stupid or that they couldn't enjoy a complex game. All I'm saying is that the marketing and gameplay is aimed at the very stupid people. While this may produce games that are adequate and fun for a while it is not a philosophy that will result in a game that is still played ten years later.

Now I am well aware that even in the "good old days" there were an awful lot of ****ty games. But it also produced gems. Which game made in the last five years still has a grand following or a very respected name? I can only think of MMO's.

Ashpolt
25th Aug 2009, 08:51
I disagree. I don't see any reason why updating graphics and AI - which I'm perfectly happy to admit were weak points of the original Deus Ex, even at the time - necessitates changing anything else. OK, better AI might mean they need to give you more places to hide, but it doesn't justify nonsense like a regenerative health system or third person cover. If that's the "balance" for getting better AI and graphics, then hell, give me the original graphics and AI but with a new story.

In all honesty, this sounds like a weak attempt to justify design decisions that are, at best, questionable. The fans have spoken, we (majoratively) don't want regenerating health and 3rd person, and so paper-thin justifications aren't going to change that - this isn't an attack on your idea specifically, Mr K, as it equally applies to statements such as "the industry as a whole has grown up" and "we don't want people backtracking, searching for medkits."

If Eidos Montreal are absolutely goddamn certain that they're not going to make these things optional (and stubborn enough to think they can improve on one of the best games of all time by dumbing it down) then the best thing they can do is show us that the rest of the game around these poor decisions is going to be great, not keep trying to convince us that these features aren't bad decisions. (And notice it's never "here's why these features are great," it's always "here's why these features aren't awful" - telling?) To use my favourite quote from Mass Effect, "don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining": instead, tell me why the rest of my day is going to be great enough to make up for you pissing in my ear.

3nails4you
25th Aug 2009, 13:38
Ion Storm based the whole game on an inferior living room decoration (aka XBox) and dumbed the game down beyond recognition, with your words, "to provide more sales via less selective gamers to match the high production cost".

AAAAmen. At some point the video game industry became the movie industry with only a slightly different product. Games' quality began to be based on what ridiculous amounts of revenue, in the media's eyes, and not on the actual quality of the game (if we were using this standard in 2000, I'm afraid DX1 would have been a joke XD). Now I understand that there are higher production costs, more people to pay, advertisements to do, but this system we've set up only serves to raise up and praise any game developer who can make the game as simple, watered-down, and conformist as possible. Any other type of developer has a small chance of succeeding in the modern video game industry. "Casual gamers" and people who play only every now and then, and only on a 360, have somehow managed to be extremely picky and, being the largest game-buying base of people, have managed to make their view of the perfect game the only one that companies are comfortable making (simple controls, aided aim, 2 whole buttons you really ever need to use in the game). Wish I had more time to rant, first day of classes starting and I'm gonna be late XD

Bluey71
25th Aug 2009, 15:32
Which game made in the last five years still has a grand following or a very respected name? I can only think of MMO's.

Thats a very good point and a very telling one too.

The odd thing is, well its odd to me anyway, is that Rene has said the game will most likely receive a Mature rating. Surely thats going to reduce the console sales by quite a margin, and in turn reduce sales to casual gamers? Or is my logic way off?

PenguinsFriend
25th Aug 2009, 15:44
I did some thinking today in my time alone, and I had a small revelation about DX3. I wanted to share it with you folks.

Your kidding right? this only just occured to you? LMAO - Brother - we debated this quite vigourusly the other day. In fact, Her Immortalness had to jump in to cool off some perceived heated tempers lol :nut:

Ashpolt
25th Aug 2009, 15:57
The odd thing is, well its odd to me anyway, is that Rene has said the game will most likely receive a Mature rating. Surely thats going to reduce the console sales by quite a margin, and in turn reduce sales to casual gamers? Or is my logic way off?

Average age of gamers is apparently mid-20's now, and teens who want mature-rated games will get them anyway. In fact, tell teenagers they can't have something and they'll just want it more. Tbh, I think if anything, getting a mature rating will increase sales.

Irate_Iguana
25th Aug 2009, 16:42
Average age of gamers is apparently mid-20's now, and teens who want mature-rated games will get them anyway. In fact, tell teenagers they can't have something and they'll just want it more. Tbh, I think if anything, getting a mature rating will increase sales.

Truth. Nowadays people are all about the mature rating. Getting a Teen rating means there will be no blood and not enough violence. Getting an AO rating means the game can't be sold in major convenience stores and is even restricted on the consoles. So what a dev wants is to hit that Mature rating.

dark_angel_7
25th Aug 2009, 16:48
In yet another interview (http://www.nowgamer.com/features/400/eidos-for-life-exclusive-ian-livingstone-qa), Ian Livingstone said that:



As for Deus Ex, it was voted best PC game a couple of years ago so there's a lot of equity in the brand and we want to fulfill people's expectations. It will be ready when it's ready. The heritage that Warren Spector gave to the title cannot be abused.

....

I've been over there three times. It is looking amazing and there are some really novel bits of gameplay in there. Graphics are a commodity now but people will always remember the gameplay. That's what I try to do, to make sure there's that one moment, that one wow factor so that people will tell their friends. Because word of mouth is the best way to promote the game.

And can you tell us about any gameplay components that would excite our readers?

I can't right now, but I am smug and quietly confident about it.


He also didn't deny that Eidos was looking into the MMO space, can we expect a DX MMO soon?...

And is it just me but have we got more DX3 info. this week then the entire year or so? :p

Jerion
25th Aug 2009, 17:40
Heh, reactions are more or less what I expected.

Keep in mind that the first post is just a concoction of ramblings that somehow formed together. :nut: No justification or any of that going on here. I don't try to justify what EM does, I'm not their cheerleader. I'm just going along, keeping things and the conversation interesting.



PS. Do you have $0.02 more?


I've got something more like $2.00 more, but it'll all get said soon* enough.

*Soon as defined by Eidos Montréal

spm1138
25th Aug 2009, 18:38
DX is definitely more than the sum of it's parts.

I'm not sure every element was as strong as it might have been even back then but all together in one game it was fairly extraordinary.

The AI and graphics weren't super even by contemporary standards tbh. I'd say look at SWAT3 for a comparison. It seemed like they made the right compromise on graphics because they brought us levels like that huge liberty island level (I remember a lot of people had real problems running that in the demo) and still managed to make a game that looked basically pretty good for back then.

To my mind what they need to do is go for a mix of elements because that's a big part of what DX is about. It's almost several games in one... or at least it was before lots of games started mixing it up. I've said before it felt like a mix of existing game elements.
It shouldn't be the same mix because FPS, RPG, stealth and adventure games have all moved on and it needs some careful tweaking to be satisfying in several different ways for different playstyles.

The story is also important ofc but that's less to do with individual gameplay elements and more to do with how the game is designed overall. DX did awesome things with the story. I think this can be improved upon too though. I like what they're saying about branching earlier.

Mmm.

I played IW recently when I replayed DX and while it's not as bad as I remember it's problems go quite deep. Uni-ammo I barely noticed in gameplay (although in DX I made a conscious decision to use guns the NPCs would drop ammo for). It's a total non-issue compared to glaring faults like the storyline and the compromises they made in level size to make it pretty. It actually sounds like they've already avoided the big pitfall IW fell into with it's "I don't like any of these people" storyline and "The future looks like a last-gen corridor shooter" level design. Trying to point the finger at any individual element is asinine. It's a 6/10 game all over.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't match that old school PC game feel nowadays. The real difference to my mind with a lot of these archetypal PC games was the way they engaged your brain. I think even in this multi-platform era there's no reason you can't have that on a game that will run on a console. Indeed some of the consoles are positioning themselves at the "more complex" end of the spectrum.

It just needs publishers to realise that while once upon a time, yes, they were selling to kids we all grew up and didn't stop gaming (because the 8-bit and 16-bit machines were regarded as toys) and would like some games that make our brains tick over.

Brilliance is another question though. I think a lot of publishers are kind of battening down the hatches and trying to take less risks. The economy is bad. A lot of new IPs haven't done so well (I still need to try Mirror's Edge). Seeing LOTS of sequels coming out (what else is new though, right?). Games cost ever more money to make. AAA titles have movie sized budgets now so I guess they're looking for safer returns on that investment.

It feels to me like we're gonna see less brilliant AAA titles and more safe-bet AAA titles.

It's actually kinda depressing when something like Bioshock immediately results in a 2 sequel deal with class based ("The kids like that TF2 stuff don't they?") multiplayer.

It's not all bad though. The rise of Steam and the like seems to be opening up a new market for indie developers.

jd10013
25th Aug 2009, 19:41
I disagree. I don't see any reason why updating graphics and AI - which I'm perfectly happy to admit were weak points of the original Deus Ex, even at the time -

I've never agreed with the notion that the graphics were that bad. sure, the hands were, and the lack of a physics system really hurt. But who wasn't blown away when they first launched the game/demo and looked at that NY skyline?

but anyhow, to reply to something else someone said, I just don't see us ever getting another game like it. Developers don't just want sales, they want massive sales. they aren't happy selling a million or two copies and making some money. they want 10, 15, 20 or however many millions they can get.

With Bioshock there was the hope we might get another deep, imerisve, atmospheric game. after all, it was one of the masters himself, Ken Levine, working on a successor to one of the greatest games ever made. But what happened? In the focus group testing those things didn't fare too well, so we got less atmosphere, an inablitly to die, an upgrade system that allowed you to be everything and anything because there was so much damn Adam everywhere, and an inconsequential moral choice that was supposed to be the backbone of the game. no, there wasn't universal ammo, but there was so much of every kind laying around, they might as well have.

So no, DX3 may turn out to be a good game, as bioshock did IMO, but I'm not holding my breath for a real DX game.

spm1138
25th Aug 2009, 20:08
but anyhow, to reply to something else someone said, I just don't see us ever getting another game like it. Developers don't just want sales, they want massive sales. they aren't happy selling a million or two copies and making some money. they want 10, 15, 20 or however many millions they can get.

Actually even "making some money" is kind of an issue when the cost of making a AAA title has gone up out of all proportion with the money they make in sales.

jd10013
25th Aug 2009, 20:15
Actually even "making some money" is kind of an issue when the cost of making a AAA title has gone up out of all proportion with the money they make in sales.

oh, I agree. I guess what I'm saying is that every publisher want another Halo, or BS. They don't want to just make a successful title, they want the next greatest, mass market thing. It used to be you just did the best you could, put out the best product you could, and sales would take care of themselves. but now they set the bar so damn high that eveything has to be focus group tried and tested. and in the end, we get some watered down, lowest common denominator product that sells well but isn't really that great.

dixieflatline
25th Aug 2009, 20:23
Wow - there are tons of really great posts here. Well, actually pretty much all of them actually. I'm glad I'm not the only gamer who feels the way I do about how things are going in the game industry. I agree with just about every post.

One minor thing to point out : actually the average age of gamers now is pegged at over 30 . So instead of pandering to casual console gamers, maybe EM would be better off pandering to people who played the original game. I.E the core audience for the game. I guess it's just corporate mentality to try to please everyone (although I would argue that this approach works in many industries, but not games.)

My .02 cents: There is a coming crisis of creativity coming in gaming. Because of all the money involved now a days, big companies are afraid of taking risks. Thus all of our games are going to become more and more alike. But the good news, I think the pendulum will swing back. There will be backlash against the same ole games being recycled, so eventually, companies will get creative again.

It isn't a matter of the talent in the gaming industry today -- it's mostly a financial matter. There was a day when most game studios were independent. Now the big boys are buying everything up. The CEO's of these huge companies are not gamers, so they make business-minded decisions to increase sales, that don't lead to better games being made. These decisions are mandated down to all of the many studios that they own.

You know how most movies coming out of Hollywood are crap, yet most make a decent amount of profit? Same thing will happen probably to gaming, unfortunately, over the coming decade. But as the game-making tools become more accessible and more powerful, I think there'll sort of be a coming 'indie renaissance' that help to balance things out .

Ilves
25th Aug 2009, 20:38
...crisis of creativity coming in gaming.

...coming?... :whistle:

Blade_hunter
25th Aug 2009, 21:08
Has become ?
I think really too much games are pretty much clones by using health regen + 3rd person cover, this is a great proof of a lack of creativity, just because this is the crap trend of gaming :(

Irate_Iguana
25th Aug 2009, 21:16
Brilliance is another question though. I think a lot of publishers are kind of battening down the hatches and trying to take less risks. The economy is bad. A lot of new IPs haven't done so well (I still need to try Mirror's Edge). Seeing LOTS of sequels coming out (what else is new though, right?). Games cost ever more money to make. AAA titles have movie sized budgets now so I guess they're looking for safer returns on that investment.

It feels to me like we're gonna see less brilliant AAA titles and more safe-bet AAA titles.

Blaming this on the economy is unfair. They have been taking safe bets and milking titles for a long time now. The latest trend is making everything a trilogy before the first game even ships. Then they add books and comics and all that jazz if the game looks even remotely successful.

Games may cost ever more money to make, but we aren't getting a return of investment. Sure there is slightly more bloom in each new game. There might be a few new enemy types. Even a hyped physics feature that in the end isn't even implemented properly. We aren't getting smarter AI. We don't see new gameplay. Physics is dragging behind in most games. I wonder where all that money goes. A large part of it goes towards marketing, but where is the rest?

Another problem I have with the games industry is that there are exactly two types of games. Triple A titles (I hate that term. There are 26 letters in the alphabet, no need to start tripling up on them) and Indie games. Shiny bloom-filled games or games with a really crappy engine. There is nothing in between. No A-title with last years engine, but a really really good story and refined gameplay. Just dumbed down, bloom filled, generic, Triple A titles or Indie games. No one tries to set up a new IP with a different approach.

Part of this reason is, at least in my opinion, the gaming press. The most unprofessional part of journalism I know of. Even tabloid press scores higher with me. Most of them display the intelligence of a gnat and the knowledge of a dead gopher. If it isn't bloom-filled, playable by a dead badger and exactly like what is popular then it is ****. Unless the publisher throws them enough parties or spends enough advertising dollars then it suddenly becomes a 10/10 game. No matter how good a game may be if they don't play by these rules it is never going to score well. And thus it will never sell.

Well that was a good rant. I'll let someone else take a turn now. I might have to rant again later though, so you better brace yourselves.

Ilves
25th Aug 2009, 21:38
May be old, but still:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8822/unitsvsscorebig.gif

From here (http://www.dreamdawn.com/sh/features/sales_vs_score.php).

jd10013
25th Aug 2009, 22:24
interesting, but so was this response at the bottom

"You assume a "good game" to be synonomous with "high metacritic scores". The fact of the matter is, these game review sites rely on payola and "reviewvertisements" and are way to influential on sales.

Look at Assassins Creed on IGN, notice the difference in reader rating and their rating (7.5 and 9.1). Someone needs to demolish the current game review industry with something new."

just how honest and accurate are the scores? I'm sure everybody remembers the mostly over 9 scores many mags gave IW. If the critics hadn't given it the glowing reviews they did, would it have sold as well?

SageSavage
25th Aug 2009, 22:41
There will never be a review system that is much more reliable then what we have today. The concepts behind Metacritic and user-reviews (like Amazons') are actually very good but you have to accept that there will always be people who are willing to manipulate these scores because they get paid for it.

Accumulating as many reviews as possible really means making it harder and more expensive for those who profit from corrupt reviews. Yes, they (Metacritic and Co) became frighteningly influential but that only means that surprisingly many people at least try to make informed purchases instead of blindly trusting the industries' promises or relying on single sources. They just have to be aware of the fact that all reviews are bound to be subjective and that there are black sheeps around. You should read and compare the reviews themselves, not only the metascores.

Ashpolt
25th Aug 2009, 22:46
On that graph, I'm interested to know what the game that scored 44 but sold about 120,000 units is! Possibly a Sims 2 expansion pack?

Ilves
25th Aug 2009, 23:15
According to the article the chart shows PS2 sales up to dec 2006 for North America. A search on Metacritic yields this (http://apps.metacritic.com/search/process?ty=3&ts=&tfs=game_all&sb=0&game_platform=PS2&release_date_s=&release_date_e=2007&metascore_s=43&metascore_e=45&x=17&y=11) list...

Ghost Recon maybe?

EDIT: Looking at that chart though it's safe to say that creativity and innovation are not a requirement for high sales. Sports 'n racing. That's your 20+ white male demographic right there... :D

Oh and the Kingdom Hearts sales is probably the 20+ white male trying to get their lady friends into gaming. :p

FrankCSIS
26th Aug 2009, 00:09
Considering that I've always disagreed with the idea that you could take the so-called core features from DX and modify the rest without affecting the final feel, I'd be hardpressed to disagree with your post.

Where I don't really follow though, is to consider the graphics or even the AI as a mechanic or feature part of the initial game. I'm not quite certain how bonifying any of it would affect the overall balance provided by features cleverly engineered and specifically handpicked to provide a certain feel.

This said, I'm not openly against creating a whole new balance, but I'm not about to cheer for it if the reasons are unclear, or hardly defendable. Innovation and creativity are the kind of freepasses to change I would gladly hand out. Following a market that was created from scratch by non-industry people and only exists on paper is the specific reason that would make me tick and go on yet another goddamn crusade.

So my question is, can a game take risks in an attempt to surpass what is being done, mainly in terms of gameplay and story integration? Honnestly, I don't see why not. We may never see a strict return to the complexity of the past, but the possibilities are vast to innovate on that chapter, and many others, with sensible solutions taking into account the varying tastes and habits of gamers, and not neglecting their ability to learn and adapt.

Innovation, moreso than marketting, has always paid up in the end. Or to paraphrase JFK on one of his rally speeches, "what we need is leadership, not salesmanship".

Blade_hunter
26th Aug 2009, 00:32
"Eidos diffuse quelques nouvelles images de Deus Ex 3, un des projets les plus attendus et donc les plus surveillés du moment. Il paraîtrait même que l'UNATCO aurait envoyé son meilleur agent dans les locaux d'Eidos Montréal afin de surveiller le développement du jeu. Cet agent infiltré aurait pour mission de saboter quelques recherches dangereuses comme le passage * la troisième personne lors des combats, les actions contextuelles et les mini-jeux, points-clés d'une vaste conspiration mondiale visant * tirer le gameplay vers le bas. On ne peut que souhaiter bonne chance * l'agent de l'Unatco dans sa mission d'intérêt public."

This news was a bit old but I just hope that UNATCO Agent does his work ^^

lumpi
27th Aug 2009, 18:52
IW almost succeeded at keeping this balance- it failed though, because of a couple very poor choices regarding select components (i.e. the loathed uni-ammo).
It "almost succeeded"? There are some... "OK" parts, but otherwise I would say: "They almost failed completely".



DX3 has a much larger gap, in terms of graphics and AI capabilities to bridge than IW did
Really? Will graphics really improve more from 2004 to 2010 than they did from 2000 to 2004? I'm not talking about how well the individual games did in this regard (both looked bland for their time, sorry), but technology-wise... 2004 introduced Real-time shadows, normal mapping, Pixel-shaders and Havok physics (all of which were used in IW). 2010 will bring... I dunno, more pixel shaders? It's more of an evolutionary process, as I see it, one that slowed down considerably in the past 3 or 4 years.

I also fail to see the new "AI capabilities" everyone is talking about. Enemies are as stupid as they have ever been. Getting stuck in walls, just running towards the player... there is a bit more dynamic scripting going on with enemies doing dives or knocking stuff over to take cover behind. But otherwise I see AI development going in circles for FPS games for the past 10 years.



At the same time, to generate more sales to offest the incredibly higher cost of producing it, there has to be some small pandering to the mainstream crowd. That means adding in some things that are accepted as common place these days, like the mostly-loathed Health Regen system.
I guess that rule was invented somewhere in the past 5 years, since I never heard it before that. Besides Ilves' beautiful chart showing the correlation between quality and sales, I can not think of any game that was both a commercial and critical success that followed this rule (except games that are built entirely around a non-gaming license such as sports games like Madden or cheap movie tie-ins).

To the contrary, wasn't there a time (like, yesterday?) when we criticized games companies for sticking to a tried and true formula? I guess, while in the past, they at least stuck with the "formula" of the same franchise, they are now importing arbitrary gameplay bits from random other genres (even if they do not fit at all).

Sigh.

Not convinced, but nice try. :D

mad_red
27th Aug 2009, 19:03
Yay!!! Give Mr. K a round of applause. I just wanted to commend you for starting a tread on this subject. Good post.

(He's a mod, a MOD for pete's sake! Isn't he supposed to just keep us sheep in line? Something's up I tell ya.)

Maybe I'll actually contribute a little later on.

Jerion
27th Aug 2009, 21:31
Maybe I should flesh out my original post in this thread with a couple more paragraphs so my train of thought doesn't look so jumpy. I can really tell where some people were going "wait, what the hell? He went from that to that? What?" :D

teknikal-vision
28th Aug 2009, 07:35
Part of this reason is, at least in my opinion, the gaming press. The most unprofessional part of journalism I know of. Even tabloid press scores higher with me. Most of them display the intelligence of a gnat and the knowledge of a dead gopher.

Oh do I know this. I recently sat in on a lecture/QA session by a games journalist from one of my city's newspapers. And yes my experience in said lecture is absolute evidence for the quality of games journalism. He did a talk on narrative in games, specifically narratives that are player directed. His opinion: the most 'amazing' examples of player directed narratives for him were: 1) Being able to marry any random in Fable 2 and have them do things unexpected (ie; follow you around and get killed), and 2) being able to be responsible for police chases in GTA4. My mate went to counter his arguement by bringing up Deus Ex. His response proved he had never played Deus Ex; he was all: *silence* and then... "yeah that's just like Mass Effect and KOTOR" (NO IT'S NOT) Also, if you search this guys entire blog you'll find he never once mentions anything about Deus Ex 3's announcement or development. And he considers himself a fan of game narratives. Feh. (Am I a terrible person for judging people based on their Deus Ex knowledge/playage? LOL)



I played IW recently when I replayed DX and while it's not as bad as I remember it's problems go quite deep. Uni-ammo I barely noticed in gameplay (although in DX I made a conscious decision to use guns the NPCs would drop ammo for). It's a total non-issue compared to glaring faults like the storyline and the compromises they made in level size to make it pretty. It actually sounds like they've already avoided the big pitfall IW fell into with it's "I don't like any of these people" storyline and "The future looks like a last-gen corridor shooter" level design. Trying to point the finger at any individual element is asinine. It's a 6/10 game all over.

Yeah Invisible War's awful story and characters is why I didn't like the game. I think I could have put u with the gameplay changes if I could care about the characters and be motivated and driven by the story. And Alex was a terrible character to step into the shoes of. It became worse when I encountered Tong, Paul and JC for the first time in IW. Talk about ruining my favourite characters. :(

Yes EM have avoided this problem already in my opinion. I like Adam heaps and the tidbits of story are enticing. (Really cool that they're making Adam a very fleshed out character with more background like JC - Alex was a boring blank canvas with no past and no life.)

spm1138
30th Aug 2009, 21:49
Blaming this on the economy is unfair. They have been taking safe bets and milking titles for a long time now. The latest trend is making everything a trilogy before the first game even ships. Then they add books and comics and all that jazz if the game looks even remotely successful.

Oh I dunno. We had Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and I was all "Wooo, EA of all people developing strong original IPs!" but then they didn't sell, so.

SageSavage
30th Aug 2009, 22:02
Personally I didn't like Dead Space very much and most stuff I heared and read about Mirror's Edge said that it's a very mixed bag and that it didn't live up to the high expectations. I try to not throw away my time and money for stuff that I believe is just so-so.

Irate_Iguana
30th Aug 2009, 22:22
Oh I dunno. We had Dead Space and Mirrors Edge and I was all "Wooo, EA of all people developing strong original IPs!" but then they didn't sell, so.

If a new IP doesn't fly then tough luck. Try again. Part of developing these IP's is that not all of them will make it. Companies need to plan for that by not trying to make a triple A from an experiment. Don't spend the big bucks until an idea takes. That is why television has pilot episodes. Game development seems seriously lacking in this department. All it can do is spend tons of money on a single game. They have no real way to test the waters before committing all their resources. That's why it usually stays with a single experiment before things go belly up.

Actually if we take a look at Mirror's Edge then EA might have been on to something. Apparently it sold over 1 million copies. That seems reasonable enough to me. From what I can tell about the game it was setup as a reasonable way to launch a new IP. They used an existing engine without a lot of modification. They focused on the one game to get it done fast. EA shouldn't have lost money over this project. They now know sufficient interest exists in the idea to try something more involved for the second game. They now have the hook they need to further develop this into a triple A game.

minus0ne
31st Aug 2009, 00:21
The lead writer for Mirror's Edge complained that she was called in when something like 80% was already finished and set in stone. She then had to come up with a coherent story tying all of it together. EA may be trying new things but they keep making the same mistakes. They know how to cut costs and make games sell well enough, but it seems they're fairly lost on how to make a really good game.

FrankCSIS
31st Aug 2009, 01:49
Are there any figures on how much it would cost to develop "pilots" for games, freeware/low-price demos of games testing the waters for new concepts, settings and game mechanics?

I'd be interested to see if it's a viable alternative to the uninteresting cow milking we've had to endure, or the ridiculous market researches and focus groups.

spm1138
31st Aug 2009, 04:30
Are there any figures on how much it would cost to develop "pilots" for games, freeware/low-price demos of games testing the waters for new concepts, settings and game mechanics?

I'd be interested to see if it's a viable alternative to the uninteresting cow milking we've had to endure, or the ridiculous market researches and focus groups.

Interesting notion. This kind of happens when mods or indie titles get picked up. Portal was an indie title before it was portal for example. Since Counter-Strike got huge I think everyone is hoping it'll happen again.

Maybe they should have like micro finance initiatives for developing indie titles and/or some kind of competition.


If a new IP doesn't fly then tough luck. Try again.

This is the thing though, they probably won't :(

It's EA. EA of the 30 Madden titles.

dark_angel_7
31st Aug 2009, 12:20
Personally I didn't like Dead Space very much and most stuff I heared and read about Mirror's Edge said that it's a very mixed bag and that it didn't live up to the high expectations. I try to not throw away my time and money for stuff that I believe is just so-so.

This is why I didn't buy Mirrors Edge.

René
31st Aug 2009, 14:23
I liked both Deadspace and Mirror's Edge.

Sure neither was perfect but in the case of Deadspace, it harkened back to the Survival Horror games of old when games like Resident Evil 4 and 5 were going more action and it had great audio and visual presentation. With Mirror's Edge, I enjoyed the freerunning aspect and thought that gameplay mechanic was handled very well. The visual and audio direction were also stunning in my opinion.

If you can find either of those games for cheap right now, I'd say they're worth picking up.

InGroove2
31st Aug 2009, 19:26
in my view, DX was an uncontrived intuitive piece. Bordering on accidental. Every element contribues heavily and, i agree, is in such a balance as to render it unable to be replicated at this point. our only chance was immediately following DX if they had started the next on the same tech as the first game... ala Thief and Thief:TMA.

At this juncture, i feel we have to expect alot to change and therefore i'm choosing to have as open a mind as possible. it wonty be DX, but it could be really great.

the reason i say DX was an accident is because IW was made by basically the same people... people who saw enough "flaws" in DX that they decided to "repair" them.... obviously we know how that turned out.

in the post mortem when smith points out how much of a mistake it was to remove skills because of the fantasy it provided in the players mind... obviously this had not occured to him previously...

it's almost as if suspension of disbelief applied to not just the PLAYING part of the game, but the DEVELOPING of the game... it was a fantasy to them too... IW was much too "gamey"...... ha.... like eating a pigeon.

SageSavage
31st Aug 2009, 19:55
I agree.

jd10013
31st Aug 2009, 22:32
He was seeing dollar signs.

I'm sure that was part of it. I think a lot of DX's success had to do with so much attention being paid to Romero and Daikatana. I think Spector had the freedom to do just about anything he wanted with DX. It was almost like being an indi. But with IW, everybody was watching and anticipating. The expectations were huge. IW became the next daikatana. The big, highly anticipated release that everyone was counting on to rake in the money.

spm1138
1st Sep 2009, 04:50
It doesn't sound like that at all. It sounds like they made those changes in good faith because they thought they'd make the game better.

OuttaZyme
1st Sep 2009, 05:32
I liked both Deadspace and Mirror's Edge.

Sure neither was perfect but in the case of Deadspace, it harkened back to the Survival Horror games of old when games like Resident Evil 4 and 5 were going more action and it had great audio and visual presentation. With Mirror's Edge, I enjoyed the freerunning aspect and thought that gameplay mechanic was handled very well. The visual and audio direction were also stunning in my opinion.

If you can find either of those games for cheap right now, I'd say they're worth picking up.

While I generally liked it, Dead Space's horror was way too over-the-top. The game practically lunged at you, instead of shambling, and that -- as any decent, self-respecting zombie will tell you -- just ain't good eats. It shouted where it should have whispered, it bled where it should have bruised, and it hit you with a bat where a gentle tap on the shoulder would have been much more visceral.

As it allegedly began life as System Shock 3, it's important to note that Dead Space misplaced the very reason why the horror in SS2 was much more effective; context. Nearly everything that happened in SS2 did so against a backdrop of the mundane, providing a much greater contrast for the horror than the setting in Dead Space. The design of the ship in Dead Space was very well done, but it looked like a place where bad stuff should happen; terror, true terror, lives where you do.

And though I readily admit that Mirror's Edge was, aesthetically, a very good game, I'm not a fan of that kind of action -- I played it for perhaps two hours before realizing that it simply wasn't for me. Didn't get very far.

spm1138
1st Sep 2009, 06:23
Speaking of indie games:
http://www.paxsite.com/pax10.php

gamer0004
1st Sep 2009, 06:50
It doesn't sound like that at all. It sounds like they made those changes in good faith because they thought they'd make the game better.

Indeed. And from a game design point of view it might actually be better. Guess it's like cars, Japanese cars are better quality but Italian cars are more fun (ofc this is rather generalizing, but you get the point).

Azrepheal
1st Sep 2009, 14:01
While I generally liked it, Dead Space's horror was way too over-the-top.

What bothered me - something Ive grown to destest in games - was the over-the-shoulder view.

I can't stand it. Immersion completely goes out the window, because it's not 'you' in the situation, it's 'you, watching someone else. From over their ******* shoulder' Which, depending on the game, can be fine - some games are about specific characters we are 'observing,' but in a game such as this it just lessens the horror element (because the scary monster arnt lunging for you - theyre lunging for a guy in front of me. Thanks human shield!)

And worst of all - with this view - the left half of the screen is blocked off. By my own character. If I need to turn left into a corridor, the camera allows me to see things that I wouldnt be able to in first person. If I need to turn right into a corridor, my character needs to blindly walk in before I can see any threats. If I need to look at my character's back, put him in the middle/bottom half of the screen so at least I can have a moderatly decent field of view. Its a stupid 'innovation' and I hope it burns in hell.

InGroove2
1st Sep 2009, 14:24
It doesn't sound like that at all. It sounds like they made those changes in good faith because they thought they'd make the game better.

i agree. It always seemed to me that their focus was the stories and much of the gameplay mechanics came from trying to do justice to the story as much as possible. In IW they got to "thinking" about the mechanics... and probably, in a text book sort of way, the 'streamlined' features in IW might be "better", cause i suppose it's generally desirable to streamline the mechanics of a game so that players can play the game and not be bothered by mechanics.... like monopoly, if you made it more complicated you'd lose alot of the monopoly players out there...

but they failed to realized just what was so magical about their original product.... focus on story and atmosphere and philosophy. DX is a fantasy, IMO, first and foremost the gameplay must reinforce the fantasy above all. in IW you felt like you were playing the game just to REMIND you of the original DX experience... like reading a book about what it's like to play DX as oppose to actually playing it. i mean really, the "streamlined" mechanics would have been palettable if their was magic in the story or in the atmosphere or characters or acting or philosophy. it was a contrivance, it had waaay too much intent and not enough inspiration.

SageSavage
1st Sep 2009, 14:29
What bothered me - something Ive grown to destest in games - was the over-the-shoulder view.

I can't stand it. Immersion completely goes out the window, because it's not 'you' in the situation, it's 'you, watching someone else. From over their ******* shoulder' Which, depending on the game, can be fine - some games are about specific characters we are 'observing,' but in a game such as this it just lessens the horror element (because the scary monster arnt lunging for you - theyre lunging for a guy in front of me. Thanks human shield!)

And worst of all - with this view - the left half of the screen is blocked off. By my own character. If I need to turn left into a corridor, the camera allows me to see things that I wouldnt be able to in first person. If I need to turn right into a corridor, my character needs to blindly walk in before I can see any threats. If I need to look at my character's back, put him in the middle/bottom half of the screen so at least I can have a moderatly decent field of view. Its a stupid 'innovation' and I hope it burns in hell.

Yeah, that, the woolly controls and the lack of AA-support were some of my biggest gripes with the PC-version.

mad_red
1st Sep 2009, 15:07
the 'streamlined' features in IW might be "better",

Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth, almost verbatim.

IW was influenced by gaming trends where DX1 was not. "Streamlining gameplay" was a phrase that got thrown around a lot in those days, especially with reference to rpgs, and it basically meant making a game more accessible to the market. The problem is when certain aspects of a game, for example gameplay mechanics such those timed-button-pressing minigames or regenerating health, turns into a trend; new trends might seem fun and succesful, and it's fine to try out new stuff, but it has to jive with the type of game you're trying to make. Just imagine how various games would be like, (deus ex, mirror's edge, thief, etc.), if they had a level-based time countdown, regenerating health, degenerating health, or plain ol' medkits. All of them influence the pacing of the game and will yield a very different gameplay experiences. It should be no surprise that the guys that enjoyed the gameplay in DX1 to be dislike regenerating health and other changes.

Getting back to the original question, I'd say nothing is impossible. There's plenty of sequels that improved on existing design that were great. But fun can be a very counter-intuitive thing. One particularly bemoaned gameplay element, such as health management, can be the most rewarding and memorable element in the game.

One feature of Lucasarts adventure games was that it was impossible to die or get stuck, and another the replacement of a command prompt interface with a point and click system. Those are two things that made them so great. Even so, no matter how frustrating those old sierra games could be, I still remember and love those games for the fact that you could doom yourself and replay entire sections, and even the command prompt UI. Between these two aspects of adventure games, one of them (dying) I'd still enjoy in a new game, one of them (command prompt) I probably won't.

I have to emphasize that you can't just pin it down on one aspect of a game. Half-life 1 with shield regen doesn't make a halo, and halo 2 with grav-gun gameplay doesn't make a half-life 2, not even gameplay-wise. The feel and play of the whole game changes because there's so many factors involved. Although I'm not a game designer, I'm guessing there isn't an easy solution to this. Most of the time, you're probably torn between building the whole game around a single idea (a certain atmosphere or emotion, such as humor, tension, fear, etc.), and diversifying and hopefully trying out new things. Maybe deus ex 1 was a product of the latter, and by sheer luck and genius pulled it off, while IW tried to do both at the same time, and for some reason failed at both.

InGroove2
1st Sep 2009, 15:44
Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth, almost verbatim.

IW was influenced by gaming trends where DX1 was not. "Streamlining gameplay" was a phrase that got thrown around a lot in those days, especially with reference to rpgs, and it basically meant making a game more accessible to the market. The problem is when certain aspects of a game, for example gameplay mechanics such those timed-button-pressing minigames or regenerating health, turns into a trend; new trends might seem fun and succesful, and it's fine to try out new stuff, but it has to jive with the type of game you're trying to make. Just imagine how various games would be like, (deus ex, mirror's edge, thief, etc.), if they had a level-based time countdown, regenerating health, degenerating health, or plain ol' medkits. All of them influence the pacing of the game and will yield a very different gameplay experiences. It should be no surprise that the guys that enjoyed the gameplay in DX1 to be dislike regenerating health and other changes.

Getting back to the original question, I'd say nothing is impossible. There's plenty of sequels that improved on existing design that were great. But fun can be a very counter-intuitive thing. One particularly bemoaned gameplay element, such as health management, can be the most rewarding and memorable element in the game.

One feature of Lucasarts adventure games was that it was impossible to die or get stuck, and another the replacement of a command prompt interface with a point and click system. Those are two things that made them so great. Even so, no matter how frustrating those old sierra games could be, I still remember and love those games for the fact that you could doom yourself and replay entire sections, and even the command prompt UI. Between these two aspects of adventure games, one of them (dying) I'd still enjoy in a new game, one of them (command prompt) I probably won't.

I have to emphasize that you can't just pin it down on one aspect of a game. Half-life 1 with shield regen doesn't make a halo, and halo 2 with grav-gun gameplay doesn't make a half-life 2, not even gameplay-wise. The feel and play of the whole game changes because there's so many factors involved. Although I'm not a game designer, I'm guessing there isn't an easy solution to this. Most of the time, you're probably torn between building the whole game around a single idea (a certain atmosphere or emotion, such as humor, tension, fear, etc.), and diversifying and hopefully trying out new things. Maybe deus ex 1 was a product of the latter, and by sheer luck and genius pulled it off, while IW tried to do both at the same time, and for some reason failed at both.

well put... and for those reasons we have presented... i think it's enough reason to not want to flush this game down the toilet.... because you're probably right that nothing is impossible... but that it's unfair for us to want DX again because if you look at it objectively... you simply can't explain why DX was so much more than the sum of its parts... and so far we can't add up the sum of the DX3 parts nonetheless have any idea if that sum includes that extra mystery something.

OuttaZyme
2nd Sep 2009, 05:31
What bothered me - something Ive grown to destest in games - was the over-the-shoulder view.

I can't stand it. Immersion completely goes out the window, because it's not 'you' in the situation, it's 'you, watching someone else. From over their ******* shoulder' Which, depending on the game, can be fine - some games are about specific characters we are 'observing,' but in a game such as this it just lessens the horror element (because the scary monster arnt lunging for you - theyre lunging for a guy in front of me. Thanks human shield!)

And worst of all - with this view - the left half of the screen is blocked off. By my own character. If I need to turn left into a corridor, the camera allows me to see things that I wouldnt be able to in first person. If I need to turn right into a corridor, my character needs to blindly walk in before I can see any threats. If I need to look at my character's back, put him in the middle/bottom half of the screen so at least I can have a moderatly decent field of view. Its a stupid 'innovation' and I hope it burns in hell.

Yeah, I've gotten used to it, but I agree. This was part of their tenuous grasp on the concept of immersive horror, trying to be imitative of games that are successful in the genre (RE4, Silent Hill), while ignoring the essentials, or the cause, of that success, which I mentioned earlier.

I don't know if many PC games do this, but the innovation which I'd like to consign to the pit of flaming discontent is the "rapidly press A to open this unremarkable door/window/chest" feature. It's a stale holdover from God of War, and I'd like to slap the gimp who first included it as a viable mechanic for accomplishing an otherwise forgettable, mundane task. Once I encounter this overwrought effluvia in a game, it's over for me.

Red
2nd Sep 2009, 10:47
Quicktime events are much older than GoW.

Arach666
2nd Sep 2009, 14:49
They were already in Dragon´s lair at 1983 and later in Shenmue at1999;)

Sabretooth1
2nd Sep 2009, 14:54
What bothered me - something Ive grown to destest in games - was the over-the-shoulder view.

I can't stand it. Immersion completely goes out the window, because it's not 'you' in the situation, it's 'you, watching someone else. From over their ******* shoulder' Which, depending on the game, can be fine - some games are about specific characters we are 'observing,' but in a game such as this it just lessens the horror element (because the scary monster arnt lunging for you - theyre lunging for a guy in front of me. Thanks human shield!)

And worst of all - with this view - the left half of the screen is blocked off. By my own character. If I need to turn left into a corridor, the camera allows me to see things that I wouldnt be able to in first person. If I need to turn right into a corridor, my character needs to blindly walk in before I can see any threats. If I need to look at my character's back, put him in the middle/bottom half of the screen so at least I can have a moderatly decent field of view. Its a stupid 'innovation' and I hope it burns in hell.

I got used to it (although I too was very frustrated with the view at first in DS), my biggest gripe was the controls in PC. They got made the game friggin' impossible later. There was also the huge difficulty bug with the Resume feature, and EA does nothing to patch this, just throws a PC version together and forgets all about it. Had the controls been more precise, I'd probably have bothered to finish the game.

As clichéed as its horror was, I still thought Dead Space was fun to an extent (kinda like those old slasher films, they aren't meant to blow your minds, but are fun to watch). At least it handled horror better than Doom 3. :rolleyes:

Mirror's Edge I liked more than DS. It was very frustrating, but the design really made the game worth it. I think the sequel can do some really great things, if done right.

lumpi
2nd Sep 2009, 14:54
i agree. It always seemed to me that their focus was the stories and much of the gameplay mechanics came from trying to do justice to the story as much as possible.

What nobody seems to see is that DX:IW's story is great. It is pretty much as engaging and allows as many choices as the first game. It's the game mechanics, exclusively, that were so disappointing.


I have to emphasize that you can't just pin it down on one aspect of a game. Half-life 1 with shield regen doesn't make a halo, and halo 2 with grav-gun gameplay doesn't make a half-life 2, not even gameplay-wise. The feel and play of the whole game changes because there's so many factors involved. Although I'm not a game designer, I'm guessing there isn't an easy solution to this. Most of the time, you're probably torn between building the whole game around a single idea (a certain atmosphere or emotion, such as humor, tension, fear, etc.), and diversifying and hopefully trying out new things. Maybe deus ex 1 was a product of the latter, and by sheer luck and genius pulled it off, while IW tried to do both at the same time, and for some reason failed at both.

Nicely put. Civilization wouldn't become a better game from turning it from turn-based into a real-time strategy game, despite the latter being a more modern and dynamic approach. It wouldn't work and it would mean that (and here I agree with the original "balance" theory of the op) game features had to be cut, streamlined or replaced by a totally different style of gameplay.

I wouldn't mind if there'd be a new game, that isn't a sequel and that throws all the classic gameplay mechanics overboard to create something truly unique. In fact, I've been waiting for a game like this a long time. But when I see the name "Deus Ex 3" on the package, I want "Deus Ex 3". Not "Grand Theft Deus Ex: Modern Halo Shock (Action Edition)".

Red
2nd Sep 2009, 15:36
"Serious Grand Theft Deus: Modern Halo Shock of Wars (Action Edition)".

Fix'd :)

Ninjerk
2nd Sep 2009, 20:05
I'm sure that was part of it. I think a lot of DX's success had to do with so much attention being paid to Romero and Daikatana. I think Spector had the freedom to do just about anything he wanted with DX. It was almost like being an indi. But with IW, everybody was watching and anticipating. The expectations were huge. IW became the next daikatana. The big, highly anticipated release that everyone was counting on to rake in the money.

Whenever I read about what happened at Ion Storm, I always think there's a distinct possibility that Romero pretty much ruined the game publisher-game developer relationship for the rest of time.

Anyways, I don't think the things that were great about Deus Ex were an "outgrowth" of the story. If I recall correctly, Spector has said that Deus Ex began with the desire to create a game whose focus was emergent gameplay. I believe he said that he had made and presented the design document when he was still working for Looking Glass.

Blade_hunter
2nd Sep 2009, 20:10
Quicktime events are much older than GoW.

As well as third person cover (Kill.Switch)

gamer0004
2nd Sep 2009, 20:11
What nobody seems to see is that DX:IW's story is great. It is pretty much as engaging and allows as many choices as the first game. It's the game mechanics, exclusively, that were so disappointing.


I thought the story was even more disappointing than its gameplay.
In DX, pieces started to fall together at some point. In IW you were suddenly told "hey, we are conspiring against the world - the WTO and the Order are basically the same organisation" without there being a good reason to tell you.
And you got told about 15 mins after you had found out the two opposing coffee brands were part of the same organistation (which is BS because they had a monopoly, so they should have raised the prices, not artificially create competition).
Besides that there were only a couple of factions, after something that should have been a new dark age, everybody was either part of the WTO or the Order, while many people like to combine religion and economic growth, there was only one security company, which couldn't even assemble more than 10 people to counter the attack on the Arcology, the Knights Templar were supposedly a new and secretive organisation and yet they had enough people and arms to defeat the WTO and Order combined...

I don't understand why anybody likes it. The story has continuity problems, is unconvincing, unrealistic, conflicts with DX and itself and badly written.
I hear people saying "but hey, the story was good" a bit too often, because nobody has ever been able to explain why it is supposed to be good.
And it wasn't what Warren Spector had originally in mind, Harvey Smith wanted a much simpler (read: crappier) story.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Sep 2009, 20:16
Perhaps people conclude that DX:IW was good because they're comparing it to other games that were out at the time (rather than DX1 itself)? Just a thought.
I liked the Omar. ;)

gamer0004
2nd Sep 2009, 20:18
Perhaps people conclude that DX:IW was good because they're comparing it to other games that were out at the time (rather than DX1 itself)? Just a thought.
I liked the Omar. ;)

Even CoD has a more convincing plot.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Sep 2009, 20:20
Even CoD has a more convincing plot.
Well, I don't think anyone is arguing about the plot.

Jerion
2nd Sep 2009, 20:25
CoD has plot?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Sep 2009, 20:30
CoD has plot?

Apparently so. gamer0004 believes this to be the case... :whistle:

Jerion
2nd Sep 2009, 20:35
Apparently so. gamer0004 believes this to be the case... :whistle:

Well then, he must see something in it that we don't. :whistle:

lumpi
2nd Sep 2009, 21:06
I thought the story was even more disappointing than its gameplay.
In DX, pieces started to fall together at some point. In IW you were suddenly told "hey, we are conspiring against the world - the WTO and the Order are basically the same organisation" without there being a good reason to tell you.
And you got told about 15 mins after you had found out the two opposing coffee brands were part of the same organistation (which is BS because they had a monopoly, so they should have raised the prices, not artificially create competition).
Besides that there were only a couple of factions, after something that should have been a new dark age, everybody was either part of the WTO or the Order, while many people like to combine religion and economic growth, there was only one security company, which couldn't even assemble more than 10 people to counter the attack on the Arcology, the Knights Templar were supposedly a new and secretive organisation and yet they had enough people and arms to defeat the WTO and Order combined...

I don't understand why anybody likes it. The story has continuity problems, is unconvincing, unrealistic, conflicts with DX and itself and badly written.
I hear people saying "but hey, the story was good" a bit too often, because nobody has ever been able to explain why it is supposed to be good.
And it wasn't what Warren Spector had originally in mind, Harvey Smith wanted a much simpler (read: crappier) story.

I admit the ending was much worse than DX1's. Also, DX1 will always have the benefit of being first, the first game to introduce us to this world of conspiracies and nano-enhanced craziness. I also liked the fact that Paul was your brother... a part of your family as opposed to a simple colleague. Oh well, nobody can deny that DX1's plot was better, but DX:IW's still has the major ingredients and I found the part about "choosing your side" to even be better integrated (and the somewhat ironic conclusion that this "choice" was nothing but an illusion after all).

It is more clumsy, more superficial, but I have too many more substantial complaints about DX:IW to complain about. The story-- unlike the horrible interface and cutting out half the gameplay-- could actually be defended.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Sep 2009, 21:33
Well then, he must see something in it that we don't. :whistle:

I. Guess. So.

:D

Arach666
2nd Sep 2009, 23:11
IW had many problems,but the worse is that you could finish the game in about 8 to 10h on the first run....by my third attempt i was able to reach the aquinas hub at the end with 2h52min and i wasn´t rushing it,only skipped a few side quests but still...

mad_red
3rd Sep 2009, 00:24
In DX, pieces started to fall together at some point. In IW you were suddenly told "hey, we are conspiring against the world - the WTO and the Order are basically the same organisation" without there being a good reason to tell you.
Hmm, yeah. I think that was the biggest letdown for me too, story-wise. Still, lumpi makes a point. I think IW had a pretty well thought out story - or rather, it had good ideas - but the way it was made into a plot was terrible. What's important to me is that it tickles the mind, like curves do, so I'm very happy that a number of ideas made an appearance - the two-headed snake or eagle (as in the wto and the order), nano-pollution, and the various ideologies represented by the different factions. Finally, I can also appreciate the denton family plot-concept somewhat.

Anyway, as far as DX3 is concerned, I'll have to agree with Groovy again (sigh). Making a game like Deus Ex into a great game isn't as straightforward as tetris. Therefore I'm willing to embrace changes to the gameplay, experimentation with new ideas, etc. and I can even forgive Eidos Montreal if it all goes south for some reason. With Boddhisattva-like patience and compassion, I'm even willing to forgive them for keeping the whole thing under wraps, not discussing anything with the fans, etc. (edit: well, probably. I can be a douchebag sometimes) But I'm NOT willing to forgive arrogance or overconfidence, no matter how much they may come to regret their decisions. After all, there are a lot of great people with clear thinking and clever ideas on this forum, discussing every pro and con of every imaginable aspect, and pleading EM to make it as good as DX1, if not the same. And there's IW of course. So if there's anything they should've learned, it's humility.

minus0ne
3rd Sep 2009, 02:30
I didn't like how IW laid it on so thick though. DX was far more subtle in revealing the goings on of the various factions (which, again, weren't so set-in-stone, there was some nuance in the relation between the characters). All the conspiracy stuff was presented in a matter-of-fact manner, which made it far less obnoxious to digest.

Igoe
3rd Sep 2009, 07:26
So, I had a long diatribe about what DX did right, and what IW did wrong, and it had a lot of my trademarked comma splices and enough ad hominem to make gamer0004 jealous. But when I started proofreading it just felt too long so here is the abridged version:

If DX3 abides by the following quotas it stands a chance of being a VERY good game:

1) Is there a story worth telling? A lot of videogames/movies fall prey to this. If there isn't a story worth telling the dialogue and plot will show it straight out. A prime example is IW. It felt rushed and didn't really have any meaning or story to it.

2) Will the game be given enough time to be fully fleshed out and polished? All it took was an extra 6 months to finalize all the details and plotholes in the original DX. Will the producers know when they need to allocate more time to create a more polished and complete narrative?

3) Are the graphics modern enough? I know there will be at least 2 of you to jump on me about this, but if the DX3 environment isn't vibrant and detailed enough it will be hard for players to be enveloped by the world and that is a HUGE dealbreaker for DX fans.

4) Is the big reveal relating the first of something? If so, you have removed a great deal of the surprise by naming your character 'Adam.' JC was originally named after Jesus Christ but that was taken out leaving the meaning of JC to be implied by his actions and sacrifice, not by his literal namesake. I suggest you do the same for the events in DX3. AJ is best left as a metaphorical Adam.

5) Are you pandering to a particular crowd? If you change the core gameplay you can't count on keeping the initial fanbase. If you market the game toward shooters you must be aware there are far better shooters on the market than DX3 and your sales will reflect this.


Those are the biggies. If DX3 can somehow avoid those I think overall it will be a very good game.

Red
3rd Sep 2009, 10:04
4) Is the big reveal relating the first of something? If so, you have removed a great deal of the surprise by naming your character 'Adam.' JC was originally named after Jesus Christ but that was taken out leaving the meaning of JC to be implied by his actions and sacrifice, not by his literal namesake. I suggest you do the same for the events in DX3. AJ is best left as a metaphorical Adam.

Hey! I just had a revelation...

The next DX game will feature BJ Blazcowicz! :D After DX3 + DX1 events, he'll step out a portal from the Black Sun dimension and kick some serious nazi* ass and prevent IW from happening! So then the developers could make a real cannon to the story instead of the IW one.

Now that would be so awesome.


*Who cares about the plothole, at least it's better than IW.

Arach666
3rd Sep 2009, 21:53
Hey! I just had a revelation...

The next DX game will feature BJ Blazcowicz! :D After DX3 + DX1 events, he'll step out a portal from the Black Sun dimension and kick some serious nazi* ass and prevent IW from happening! So then the developers could make a real cannon to the story instead of the IW one.

Now that would be so awesome.


*Who cares about the plothole, at least it's better than IW.

Now,now,IW is not THAT bad...:rasp:

minus0ne
4th Sep 2009, 00:09
Now,now,IW is not THAT bad...:rasp:
Well... actually.. :p

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Sep 2009, 07:52
Now,now,IW is not THAT bad...:rasp:

Agreed. :D

mad_red
4th Sep 2009, 11:18
So, I had a long diatribe about what DX did right, and what IW did wrong, and it had a lot of my trademarked comma splices and enough ad hominem to make gamer0004 jealous. But when I started proofreading it just felt too long so here is the abridged version

:lol: Sounds like every other post of mine.

You know that ain't a bad list. What I was wondering (just for a second there mind you) is which of those landmines do you fear DX3 might be precariously avoiding/stepping on/digging up, wrapping c4 and spikes around, wiring to a couple of experimental thermonuclear fusion devices, and swallowing whole for good measure. Oh, and why?

Fur example, given the hints we've gotten about the birth of augmentation, Adam seems like an appropriate name. Did that just ruin it for you?

InGroove2
4th Sep 2009, 15:16
I thought the story was even more disappointing than its gameplay.
In DX, pieces started to fall together at some point. In IW you were suddenly told "hey, we are conspiring against the world - the WTO and the Order are basically the same organisation" without there being a good reason to tell you.
And you got told about 15 mins after you had found out the two opposing coffee brands were part of the same organistation (which is BS because they had a monopoly, so they should have raised the prices, not artificially create competition).
Besides that there were only a couple of factions, after something that should have been a new dark age, everybody was either part of the WTO or the Order, while many people like to combine religion and economic growth, there was only one security company, which couldn't even assemble more than 10 people to counter the attack on the Arcology, the Knights Templar were supposedly a new and secretive organisation and yet they had enough people and arms to defeat the WTO and Order combined...

I don't understand why anybody likes it. The story has continuity problems, is unconvincing, unrealistic, conflicts with DX and itself and badly written.
I hear people saying "but hey, the story was good" a bit too often, because nobody has ever been able to explain why it is supposed to be good.
And it wasn't what Warren Spector had originally in mind, Harvey Smith wanted a much simpler (read: crappier) story.

this i completely agree with you on... and to me, the primary problem with the writing is how god-aweful the dialogue was... it was absolutely pitiful. On top of that,. the writing for the Alex D character was... man he was just stupid, he didn't have any ideas he mainly just asked "is that what you think?" "what do you think about this?" "I thought the order was supposed to be blah blah". It was soooo dissapoiting. i think even with such a screwed up story, they could have covered it up with decent dialogue and character writing. Alex had no attitude, nothing tha one would admire.. then all the sudden he's a bad ass with augs? Leo jankowski? brutal.

I also hated how alex wasn't attached to anyone... you didn't have an office or people who were your friends like Alex or jaime or Sam Carter,.... did anyone care about the tarsus academy?

gamer0004
4th Sep 2009, 15:52
this i completely agree with you on... and to me, the primary problem with the writing is how god-aweful the dialogue was... it was absolutely pitiful. On top of that,. the writing for the Alex D character was... man he was just stupid, he didn't have any ideas he mainly just asked "is that what you think?" "what do you think about this?" "I thought the order was supposed to be blah blah". It was soooo dissapoiting. i think even with such a screwed up story, they could have covered it up with decent dialogue and character writing. Alex had no attitude, nothing tha one would admire.. then all the sudden he's a bad ass with augs? Leo jankowski? brutal.

I also hated how alex wasn't attached to anyone... you didn't have an office or people who were your friends like Alex or jaime or Sam Carter,.... did anyone care about the tarsus academy?

The first time I played IW I didn't even know what Tarsus exactly did, because I didn't care enough to read anything about it.

Anyway, I also very much disliked the fact that Alex and Billie were supposed to be friends, because she was awfully annoying.
Alex' dialog was also kind of weird on some occasions. For instance when talking to JC (I believe this was one of such occasions, though I am not sure of it) he was first very critical (like: "but isn't the idea X basically the same as slavery") and then, when you promised JC to help him (only half a minute later) Alex was suddenly very positive. He seemed a very weak character.

And the voice acting wasn't very good either. "You picked the wrong person to mug, punk" sounded like: "nice weather we're having".

Irate_Iguana
4th Sep 2009, 17:25
I also hated how alex wasn't attached to anyone... you didn't have an office or people who were your friends like Alex or jaime or Sam Carter,.... did anyone care about the tarsus academy?

That's because they gave you no chance to connect with the place. You start out under siege. The most you speak to people is a line or five. Then you get told that they have been spying on you and you need to escape. There is no easy beginning to get to know everything and everyone. It may sound like a good idea on paper to immediately start with action, but it doesn't give the player the chance to connect to the story and the people.

Igoe
4th Sep 2009, 17:40
Now think of how awesome it would have been if there were 3-4 training missions in Chicago at the start of the game where you competed with Billie in time trials (with the dialogue options to smack talk and joke with her) and then a real-time SWAT exercise that let you choose which way you wanted to disarm the situation (i.e. one big open room with trainers dressed as bad guys and a myriad of options at your disposal.)

That night you are awoken by explosions rocking the building and must use all of your wits to escape to the roof before you and Billie are consumed in the nanobomb (and of course in the chaos on your way out you MAY be able to find your first biomod canister)

At the Seattle Tarsus you must complete the time trials over again, but with 2 different adversaries who you can also engage in dialogue to form friendships or rivalries. Depending on the Biomod you chose to install, you MAY or may not have a slight advantage over them.... That way, when the Order comes a knockin' you've had time to interact with the characters in your own way and the events that happen to them later on would have some MEANING.

InGroove2
4th Sep 2009, 17:47
That's because they gave you no chance to connect with the place. You start out under siege. The most you speak to people is a line or five. Then you get told that they have been spying on you and you need to escape. There is no easy beginning to get to know everything and everyone. It may sound like a good idea on paper to immediately start with action, but it doesn't give the player the chance to connect to the story and the people.

TOTALLY AGREE! That's an often missed point too... starting the game with action and never looking back is just a FILM making fallacy (attach this to the argument AGAINST always trying to make movies like films). You're right, not only did the immediate action prevent you from getting acclamated to the world and to people etc... but the action was SUPER weak. i mean, there's a raid on the academy, and you're upstairs in teh paratments strolling around, pressing people's buzzer and talking to the guard... it was really, just an illusion of action.... then you go talk to billie who all but tells you straight away that tarsus is the bad guy and that SHE is a baddie. then i don't remember.. someone TELLS you to go to the rec area and meet leo and what ever her name was? It was just aweful.

I mean you can't beat DX, starting with the whole of UNATCO behind you, meeting your bro, the other UNATCO agents basically saying "good luck" on yourt first mission, the incoming message from alex.... the friendly bot. you felt part of a team and you slowley and strategically entered the mission and felt "i'm the good guy on the good team and i'm gonna save the day" and over time you learn "i'm a good guy on the wrong team, i was duped and my boss ios a snake" etc etc.

\alex was a moron. i know i'm ranting... sorry.

Qumni
4th Sep 2009, 18:15
Now think of how awesome it would have been if there were 3-4 training missions in Chicago at the start of the game where you competed with Billie in time trials (with the dialogue options to smack talk and joke with her) and then a real-time SWAT exercise that let you choose which way you wanted to disarm the situation (i.e. one big open room with trainers dressed as bad guys and a myriad of options at your disposal.)

That night you are awoken by explosions rocking the building and must use all of your wits to escape to the roof before you and Billie are consumed in the nanobomb (and of course in the chaos on your way out you MAY be able to find your first biomod canister)

At the Seattle Tarsus you must complete the time trials over again, but with 2 different adversaries who you can also engage in dialogue to form friendships or rivalries. Depending on the Biomod you chose to install, you MAY or may not have a slight advantage over them.... That way, when the Order comes a knockin' you've had time to interact with the characters in your own way and the events that happen to them later on would have some MEANING.


this would be an awesome game!

gamer0004
4th Sep 2009, 18:42
TOTALLY AGREE! That's an often missed point too... starting the game with action and never looking back is just a FILM making fallacy (attach this to the argument AGAINST always trying to make movies like films). You're right, not only did the immediate action prevent you from getting acclamated to the world and to people etc... but the action was SUPER weak. i mean, there's a raid on the academy, and you're upstairs in teh paratments strolling around, pressing people's buzzer and talking to the guard... it was really, just an illusion of action.... then you go talk to billie who all but tells you straight away that tarsus is the bad guy and that SHE is a baddie. then i don't remember.. someone TELLS you to go to the rec area and meet leo and what ever her name was? It was just aweful.

I mean you can't beat DX, starting with the whole of UNATCO behind you, meeting your bro, the other UNATCO agents basically saying "good luck" on yourt first mission, the incoming message from alex.... the friendly bot. you felt part of a team and you slowley and strategically entered the mission and felt "i'm the good guy on the good team and i'm gonna save the day" and over time you learn "i'm a good guy on the wrong team, i was duped and my boss ios a snake" etc etc.

\alex was a moron. i know i'm ranting... sorry.

Totally agree. Same with Oblivion and Morrowind. The opening of Morrowind were completely awesome, it really gave me a feeling of a new world to discover and of new adventures to experience. I remember how I nicked most of the items to be able to buy myself some equipment... Good times.
In Oblivion I immediately played an important role (as a lvl 1 :scratch:) and thus when I left the sewers I already had some equipment and a lot of combat experience. It wasn't as epic as Morrowind.

jd10013
5th Sep 2009, 12:03
That's because they gave you no chance to connect with the place. You start out under siege. The most you speak to people is a line or five. Then you get told that they have been spying on you and you need to escape. There is no easy beginning to get to know everything and everyone. It may sound like a good idea on paper to immediately start with action, but it doesn't give the player the chance to connect to the story and the people.

truer words have never been spoken. Just another of the things DX got right that Smith decided just wasn't imortant. When I first played DX I almost couldn't wait to get back to the office to check my computer, and Manderly's :rasp:, talk to alex, Jamie, carter and everyone else. It made you care about the people and the place. and thats what made stuff like Pauls death (if you went that way), simmons turning on you at the NSF base, and even killing people like Manderly so meaningful. Hell, on the break out mission when I was holding the gun to his head, I almost felt sorry for old manderly, especial with Simons there taunting him.

lumpi
6th Sep 2009, 02:36
Yes, it's a pacing problem. If you remove the slow parts, or at least treat them super-critical as something to avoid, you arrive at a point where there is no time for a convincing background story. So much for EM announcing a "more event-driven experience with less filler".

Some of my most memorable scenes from DX1 are a few lines of dialog, in some remote and-- on the surface-- unimportant corners. DX:IW has that, but with one less layer of depth. When there were "important, less important and unimportant" scenes in Deus Ex, there were only "important and semi-important" ones in DX:IW. Semi-important to a less engaging story that is.

I stand by my opinion that DX:IW had bits of storyline that I truly enjoyed, though. I didn't find the dialog to be all-horrible either. What I heard is that some of the original script was cut or streamlined and that is probably exactly what you can feel throughout DX:IW. Less depth.

Azrepheal
6th Sep 2009, 03:27
Some of my most memorable scenes from DX1 are a few lines of dialog, in some remote and-- on the surface-- unimportant corners.

"I spill my drink!"

Is there anyone on these forums who doesn't know where this (hardly plot-important) line is spoken?

I was going to list off many more, but its late, and Im tired and lazy. Someone else can - theres enough wonderful moments in DX to fill a few pages of these boards.

Ninjerk
6th Sep 2009, 16:08
I ain't going back to jail, *****.

Igoe
6th Sep 2009, 18:24
A bomb's a bad choice for close range combat.

It's still goin on, isn't it? They're shooting people right outside the bar...

Everything. The Second Men.

You're the spy, huh? They have a plan, they're gonna kill you...

I am a patient man...

Well since that makes you my new boss, take a long hard look at Manderley's dead body. Consider that my resgination, I don't have time to write a letter.

Consider your motivations for breaking the arbitrary laws of the current government. Do not miss your chance to be one of us and create the new world order.

What's the rush? ...Take a look around.

mad_red
6th Sep 2009, 21:58
ooh ooh, can I? Can I please? Here I go:

It's like giving them cigarettes or something.

My country, 'tis of thee...

I order you to stand in the shadows and growl like a dog who needs a master

Green greasy greasels

and, of course, the entire Morpheus AI conversation.


So much for EM announcing a "more event-driven experience with less filler".

Uh oh, that doesn't sound too good.

Ashpolt
6th Sep 2009, 23:46
"I see you in the corner, smouldering, hostile. Everyone will wonder who you are."

Ninjerk
7th Sep 2009, 06:19
Do you come from the market? That is where I want to go.

Jay See Denton, in the fresh.

Daedalus.
7th Sep 2009, 07:36
Now,now,IW is not THAT bad...:rasp:



IW was horrible!

APostLife
7th Sep 2009, 07:48
IW was horrible!

Yes, really horrible!:eek: