PDA

View Full Version : One Of Deus Ex: Human Revolution’s Unseen Social Paths



Esnuk
7th Jul 2010, 16:23
http://www.siliconera.com/2010/07/06/one-of-deus-ex-human-revolutions-unseen-social-paths/

68_pie
7th Jul 2010, 18:31
Bosses, Dugas explained, have to be fought and killed.

This slapped me in the face.

ThePrecursor
7th Jul 2010, 18:34
This slapped me in the face.

It shouldn't have, you were forewarned if you were well-informed.

Anyway, this article isn't new. I believe it was already on the net for some time, at least I remember reading almost the exact same article.

68_pie
7th Jul 2010, 19:19
It shouldn't have, you were forewarned if you were well-informed.

Anyway, this article isn't new. I believe it was already on the net for some time, at least I remember reading almost the exact same article.

It was anticipated but I don't recall it having been said explicitly.

Blade_hunter
7th Jul 2010, 19:39
It was said you can avoid to kill anyone except the bosses.

Pinky_Powers
7th Jul 2010, 19:47
This slapped me in the face.

You didn't like the original Deus Ex much, did you?

You have to kill Anna Navarra. You have to kill Gunther Hermann. You have to kill Walton Simons. And you have to kill Bob Page in some fashion.

68_pie
7th Jul 2010, 20:12
You didn't like the original Deus Ex much, did you?

A little hyperbolic when I consider it the fourth best game ever made.


You have to kill Anna Navarra. You have to kill Gunther Hermann. You have to kill Walton Simons. And you have to kill Bob Page in some fashion.

I seem to remember running away a lot. :D This may just be semantics but you didn't necessarily have to fight them (e.g. kill phrases) even if they had to die. It was partly the fact that in the article having to fight bosses was described as in-opposition to social and hacking paths. By which I mean it sounds like it has to be a straight up firefight instead of, say, hacking turrets to kill the boss or using a social path which could be, for example, talking others into killing the boss for you or using a killphrase for augmented opponents (of course kill switches might not have been put in yet).

ricwhite
7th Jul 2010, 20:32
Wouldn't be a huge problem if you decide to go the hacking, stealth, social route and devote all of your augmentations, upgrades, resources to that end and then you come to a boss that you HAVE to fight and kill; yet you have no or few combat augmentations or upgrades to do so. Wouldn't those boss fights be practically impossible to win? I guess you're almost forced to choose more of a combat role so you can be properly equipped when the bosses come along. Or am I missing something?

Pinky_Powers
7th Jul 2010, 20:42
A little hyperbolic when I consider it the fourth best game ever made.



I seem to remember running away a lot. :D This may just be semantics but you didn't necessarily have to fight them (e.g. kill phrases) even if they had to die. It was partly the fact that in the article having to fight bosses was described as in-opposition to social and hacking paths. By which I mean it sounds like it has to be a straight up firefight instead of, say, hacking turrets to kill the boss or using a social path which could be, for example, talking others into killing the boss for you or using a killphrase for augmented opponents (of course kill switches might not have been put in yet).

Well, I certainly hope they handle them the same way as we saw in Deus Ex. Killing is still killing though. A kill-phrase is no more moral than stabbing someone in the eye with dry twigs.

They didn't specifically say you had to pull out your gun and shoot the sucker, so lets hope for the best.

There was no way to permanently avoid getting into it with Simons, though, right?

Pinky_Powers
7th Jul 2010, 20:46
Wouldn't be a huge problem if you decide to go the hacking, stealth, social route and devote all of your augmentations, upgrades, resources to that end and then you come to a boss that you HAVE to fight and kill; yet you have no or few combat augmentations or upgrades to do so. Wouldn't those boss fights be practically impossible to win? I guess you're almost forced to choose more of a combat role so you can be properly equipped when the bosses come along. Or am I missing something?

You start the game out with a mastery of all weapons. And so as long as you have a weapon on hand, no boss-fight should be impossible... unless you just really, really suck at fps. :)

ricwhite
7th Jul 2010, 21:38
You start the game out with a mastery of all weapons. And so as long as you have a weapon on hand, no boss-fight should be impossible... unless you just really, really suck at fps. :)

That doesn't sound correct OR challenging. You certainly didn't start out with a "mastery of all weapons" in the original Deus Ex. Why in the world would you WANT to start out with a "mastery of all weapons"? It seems to be that part of the intrigue and excitement about Deus Ex is the character's ability to customize, augment, and specialize in certain skills and weaponry over the course of the game. And I would think that boss battles would require increased firepower in order to make it challenging.

I was under the impression that, if one so chose, you could decide to use stealth and social skills to achieve objectives. Now I understand that forced intense combat will be required at various stages. It just appears to me that it would be better to shape your character from the beginning for combat since you're going to be forced into that anyway. All of your stealth, hacking, and social augmentations and upgrades sound worthless for boss battles, while the combat augmentations and upgrades will be very advantageous.

So, I'm still not clear how that is balanced. I suspect that during boss battles, high power combat equipment with some upgrades will likely be conveniently placed for battle, and then you can drop them again and revert back to the stealth and social path.

I wish a developer would better explain that.

Pinky_Powers
7th Jul 2010, 22:04
That doesn't sound correct OR challenging. You certainly didn't start out with a "mastery of all weapons" in the original Deus Ex. Why in the world would you WANT to start out with a "mastery of all weapons"? It seems to be that part of the intrigue and excitement about Deus Ex is the character's ability to customize, augment, and specialize in certain skills and weaponry over the course of the game. And I would think that boss battles would require increased firepower in order to make it challenging.

I was under the impression that, if one so chose, you could decide to use stealth and social skills to achieve objectives. Now I understand that forced intense combat will be required at various stages. It just appears to me that it would be better to shape your character from the beginning for combat since you're going to be forced into that anyway. All of your stealth, hacking, and social augmentations and upgrades sound worthless for boss battles, while the combat augmentations and upgrades will be very advantageous.

So, I'm still not clear how that is balanced. I suspect that during boss battles, high power combat equipment with some upgrades will likely be conveniently placed for battle, and then you can drop them again and revert back to the stealth and social path.

I wish a developer would better explain that.

I wish to god I had the pow0rz to BAN you.

Firstly, apart from an unspecified number of Bosses, you will NEVER be forced to kill anybody. Secondly, these Boss-confrontations are still a mystery. Deus Ex had Bosses you had to kill, and there is as yet no word on what sort of battle will be required.

In other words, everything you've just posted is nothing more than a fantasy you've concocted in your head; where huge set-piece fights take place and the only way to survive is if you have all the battle-oriented augmentations.

Based on the information we do have, it is very unlikely you'll need any heavy weaponry or augmentations to survive Bosses. Walton Simons was probably the hardest Boss in Deus Ex, and even he could be killed with a single LAM or a clip of SMG fire.

FrankCSIS
7th Jul 2010, 22:37
The argument may be valid, but for once I think this fear which ricwhite brings up is actually a positive thing towards the game.

I like the idea that someone who follows a social or hacking path for all of the game is punished for it, or at least very challenged, in some areas where following a warior path would have been preferable. I especially despise games which leave you an absolute freedom to decide how to do anything, and never punish you for the choices you've made, as if all choices were equally valid, in all situations.

I bring up Fallout 3 a lot, but it's the most recent example of this annoyance. You have hacking skills? Good, because we have a terminal rigged to that locked door. Oh you don't hack? Well no worries, you can pick the lock. No picking? Look around, the key is in the drawer next door, where the lone guard is sleeping almost unarmed. It'll just take you two more seconds to get it.

If you go camping in the woods, and you don't bring a lighter or matches, you'll have to create your initial spark. If you're good at it, it'll be almost as quick as throwing on a match. If you suck at it, you'll swear a lot, and when the fire finally catches you'll feel fantastic for it. It's a simplistic example, but it's true with any situation in life, and as such, should be reflected in a game where consequences are supposed to be a central theme.

And yes, in the original DX, there were many moments when taking a decision or a path meant going out of your way on a harder path, and the experience was all the better for it. That's the main idea behind making choices.

Blade_hunter
7th Jul 2010, 23:07
While you can built up Adam for hacking or social paths, there are times where Adam has to fight. Bosses, Dugas explained, have to be fought and killed.

This means you are forced to fight the bosses you encounter in DX 3

Fluffis
7th Jul 2010, 23:21
This means you are forced to fight the bosses you encounter in DX 3

I just knew it... I just damn knew it... (Edit to clarify: Sometimes I just hate when I'm right.)

Daedalus Ciarán
7th Jul 2010, 23:26
Firstly, apart from an unspecified number of Bosses, you will NEVER be forced to kill anybody. Secondly, these Boss-confrontations are still a mystery. Deus Ex had Bosses you had to kill, and there is as yet no word on what sort of battle will be required.

In other words, everything you've just posted is nothing more than a fantasy you've concocted in your head; where huge set-piece fights take place and the only way to survive is if you have all the battle-oriented augmentations.

Based on the information we do have, it is very unlikely you'll need any heavy weaponry or augmentations to survive Bosses. Walton Simons was probably the hardest Boss in Deus Ex, and even he could be killed with a single LAM or a clip of SMG fire.

Well they've said you have to fight and kill bosses. Now, maybe we're just arguing semantics here but there was nothing remotely boss like about any of the major character encounters in DX. Apart from Anna, your man in the missle silo (who I think you could knock unconscious anyway) and presumably Page (though this is never stated in some endings of the game) you didn't have to kill anyone in DX, and you only had to fight one character. You could avoid Simons easily, and if you didn't, like you said, he went down like any other in game character. There was nothing that set him out as a boss in the traditional sense of the word.

Maybe this is just poor English on Dugas' part, but it seems to me that these boss battles are less like the encounters in DX, where many could be avoided. Bosses to me sounds like a forced encounter, where you're locked in a room or area with the enemy and duke it out 'til one hits the floor, at which point the plot continues. Now, if that's the case, it's going to be kind of hard to justify using stealth augmentations all the way up until that point where they suddenly become useless.


[QUOTE=FrankCSIS;1444515]I like the idea that someone who follows a social or hacking path for all of the game is punished for it, or at least very challenged, in some areas where following a warior path would have been preferable. I especially despise games which leave you an absolute freedom to decide how to do anything, and never punish you for the choices you've made, as if all choices were equally valid, in all situations.
[QUOTE]

But then you have the problem of a person who has only focused on the "warior path", and how are you going to punish them? Give them a section where they are forced to use hacking, which they have never invested in before? You could end up creating a dead end in that case. Having consequences for your actions is all fine and grand, certain areas are going to be more complicated, difficult, easy or straightforward than others, but if you're going to punish people for their choices you could end up really screwing the game up.

FrankCSIS
7th Jul 2010, 23:33
Someone with absolutely zero hacking, social, lockpicking skills, who is strictly a shooter, should indeed miss some portions of the game, and face near-impossible challenges which would have been much easier with another path.

That's just how life is. If you don't know how to read, you'll never be able to get whatever knowledge is written down in books by yourself, period. And so while you might decide not to read very often, you do realise that learning to read to a certain degree is almost essential. Balancing your character, at least a little, is a given. While no playstyles should be favored, it's important to keep some things out of reach to those who have made extreme choices.

Whether it screws the game up or not is entirely up to the devs' skills, and their understanding of a good narrative path.

Edit: I think the only downside to this news is that knowing in advance bosses are to be fought, we know right away where we will be challenged, and perhaps we won't even try to find for another way to defeat them. Hopefully it's not as clearcut as some make it out to be.

Irate_Iguana
7th Jul 2010, 23:51
But then you have the problem of a person who has only focused on the "warior path", and how are you going to punish them? Give them a section where they are forced to use hacking, which they have never invested in before? You could end up creating a dead end in that case. Having consequences for your actions is all fine and grand, certain areas are going to be more complicated, difficult, easy or straightforward than others, but if you're going to punish people for their choices you could end up really screwing the game up.

There is nothing wrong with not being able to do all the different side quests. If a side quests require a mind control implant to successful complete than the guy who did not install one should not be able to do that quest. That is not punishing the player in my mind. That is a simple consequence for your actions. By balancing these quests everyone will be at roughly the same level of equipment and XP at all points in the main quests. So you are not effectively punished by missing out on gear and XP. All you miss is a certain quest.

It becomes something else when the main quests features sections that would be a dead-end for certain builds. The main quest has to be built in such a way that it is always possible to finish it. That doesn't mean that all builds should be able to use all alternative paths or that they should all have the same difficulty, but it should at least be doable. Having to start the game over because you can't progress in the main quest is actively punishing the player.

Daedalus Ciarán
7th Jul 2010, 23:56
Someone with absolutely zero hacking, social, lockpicking skills, who is strictly a shooter, should indeed miss some portions of the game, and face near-impossible challenges which would have been much easier with another path.

That's just how life is. If you don't know how to read, you'll never be able to get whatever knowledge is written down in books by yourself, period. And so while you might decide not to read very often, you do realise that learning to read to a certain degree is almost essential. Balancing your character, at least a little, is a given. While no playstyles should be favored, it's important to keep some things out of reach to those who have made extreme choices.

Whether it screws the game up or not is entirely up to the devs' skills, and their understanding of a good narrative path.

Except you don't have to be able to read to get information out of a book. With good social skills you can get someone to teach you from the book for a price, or simply use a computer tool to scan and read the book. Learning to read is an option.

Just to bring in a comparison, at no point in DX were you ever forced to stop because you hadn't picked the strength aug instead of melee upgrade. Nor was there a narrative area where you couldn't progress because you weren't good enough at hacking, or at stealth. There were always multiple options, just as there are multiple options to getting information out of a book. Each has benefits, but at no point are the challenges faced "near-impossible". At no point in DX were you punished for playing a non-lethal playthrough, or a straight FPS playthrough, or for being good at hacking and mediocre at stealth.

Sure there were emails you might not see, and maybe a code you could miss. You might not be able to get into a closet, or a weapon locker, but these were not ultimately important to the narrative because there was another option to progress - you could blow up a door, or simply ignore the weapons.

Marses
8th Jul 2010, 00:04
I just knew it... I just damn knew it... (Edit to clarify: Sometimes I just hate when I'm right.)
Because, in the Original Deus Ex, you didn't have to cheese the game to get around them. I forgot that.

Fluffis
8th Jul 2010, 00:08
Because, in the Original Deus Ex, you didn't have to cheese the game to get around them. I forgot that.

You didn't have to fight. You had to kill, if you didn't want to "cheese" the game, but you didn't have to fight.

ricwhite
8th Jul 2010, 00:35
I wish to god I had the pow0rz to BAN you.

Firstly, apart from an unspecified number of Bosses, you will NEVER be forced to kill anybody. Secondly, these Boss-confrontations are still a mystery. Deus Ex had Bosses you had to kill, and there is as yet no word on what sort of battle will be required.

In other words, everything you've just posted is nothing more than a fantasy you've concocted in your head; where huge set-piece fights take place and the only way to survive is if you have all the battle-oriented augmentations.

Based on the information we do have, it is very unlikely you'll need any heavy weaponry or augmentations to survive Bosses. Walton Simons was probably the hardest Boss in Deus Ex, and even he could be killed with a single LAM or a clip of SMG fire.

I was responding to the article that stated that there are boss battles that you have to fight and kill. If so, that contradicts the notion that you can play the entire game without killing anyone. If the article is accurate, I was wondering how the game balances the combat for those choosing a non-combat approach. That's all. There's no reason to get all bent out of shape about it. Shesh.

super...
8th Jul 2010, 00:41
little sad about having to kill people,

but the social paths sound very interesting, neat consequences. it's so good i dont want to spoil the story any more.

pringlepower
8th Jul 2010, 01:05
You didn't have to fight. You had to kill, if you didn't want to "cheese" the game, but you didn't have to fight.

Really what's the moral difference between making Gunther explode into tiny mechanized bits with two words and chopping him into bits, or exploding him into bitsn or or plasma-soaking him, or perforating him, or dropping several console-spawned potted plants onto him...

Unless you're talking about the gameplay difference of choice. In which case... I've got nothing. For now...

Edit: Simons!

Fluffis
8th Jul 2010, 01:58
Really what's the moral difference between making Gunther explode into tiny mechanized bits with two words and chopping him into bits, or exploding him into bitsn or or plasma-soaking him, or perforating him, or dropping several console-spawned potted plants onto him...

Unless you're talking about the gameplay difference of choice. In which case... I've got nothing. For now...


That's exactly what I'm talking about. From the wording about "boss fights" in DX:HR, it seems we have to fight. In DX there was at least the kill-phrases, which you had to make a choice to get a hold of, or hack some computers to find. You didn't have to fight Anna and Günther - you used UNATCO's own devices against them.



Edit: Simons!

Run, my friend. Run. Get out of the area. Once the load screen hits, you're golden.

pringlepower
8th Jul 2010, 02:13
That's exactly what I'm talking about. From the wording about "boss fights" in DX:HR, it seems we have to fight. In DX there was at least the kill-phrases, which you had to make a choice to get a hold of, or hack some computers to find. You didn't have to fight Anna and Günther - you used UNATCO's own devices against them.



Run, my friend. Run. Get out of the area. Once the load screen hits, you're golden.

Area 51?
And wasn't there only one way to kill Page, sans the 3 endings, which don't really count as part of the fight.

luminar
8th Jul 2010, 02:32
Ah ****! Man I really hope they dont turn these into trivial things where you have some "epic!" battle with the boss ending with you choosing to kill or not kill them.

FrankCSIS
8th Jul 2010, 03:49
Just to bring in a comparison, at no point in DX were you ever forced to stop because you hadn't picked the strength aug instead of melee upgrade.

And I very much doubt the game will stop because the bosses are tougher encounter than what your equipment level can possibly defeat, even with full-on sneak augs. The challenge is just going to be tougher, because you'll have to find a clever way to fight them, instead of going on a frontal balls out confrontation. If, of course, those sequences are well balanced. If the game is badly designed then I'm not defending this position. Like I said though, the idea of instoring those challenges on specific boss fights make me dubbious of too obvious a narrative design and progression.

I mean, there were times in DX when having the GEP and being good with it would have made my life much, much easier, and the things I had to get around just to get by bots were really out there, but in the end I made it out. Other times I was really glad to be hacking bots instead of facing them. Gunther comes to mind, considering I didn't make the right choices to get his phrase, and I wasn't equiped or skilled to confront him well. That's just how a well balanced game is supposed to be. Your choices are really not supposed to be equally valid, all the time, because that's not how life is, and that's not how those experiences would translate into if you had to truly face them. It just voids the entire point of offering choices in the first place. That's something DX understood very well, and something others completely miss. Choices by themselves are entirely useless for narrative progression or gaming experience. It's not a perk you can just check and say "well, it's in there, what's next on the list?"

Maybe I worded it badly before, but really what I think is that every situation, of every chapter, should not be experienced the same way for everyone, regardless of the skills they chose to boost. That's something games like Oblivion or Fallout 3 really missed on, because all solutions to any problem were located within the same area, ensuring seemless progression regardless of choices, skills and equipment. In the same vein, I really hope that cleverly disposed rocket launcher we saw in the leaked footage will not be in the final version. It's really a terrible thing to leave the tools to a problem in the area, for those who chose not to bring it before. Offer other solutions for them to find, or allow them to be creative, but don't leave a damn rocket launcher nearby.

pringlepower
8th Jul 2010, 03:59
Maybe I worded it badly before, but really what I think is that every situation, of every chapter, should not be experienced the same way for everyone, regardless of the skills they chose to boost. That's something games like Oblivion or Fallout 3 really missed on, because all solutions to any problem were located within the same area, ensuring seemless progression regardless of choices, skills and equipment. In the same vein, I really hope that cleverly disposed rocket launcher we saw in the leaked footage will not be in the final version. It's really a terrible thing to leave the tools to a problem in the area, for those who chose not to bring it before. Offer other solutions for them to find, or allow them to be creative, but don't leave a damn rocket launcher nearby.

Yeah when I first saw that (along with the crossbow and assault rifle) just lying around I was pretty shocked. Then common sense clicked in and I realized they were there for the demo.... I hope they were just there for the demo.

FrankCSIS
8th Jul 2010, 04:08
I'm assuming it was for the demo. I just mentionned it becaise it's been done before, and I really hope they don't have that silly philosophy of easing up player progression at all costs.

Gears of War 2 was a prime example of this. The game is designed so that you can only carry two types of weapons at a time, forcing you to make a choice, but every single time another weapon would be preferable you'd find one laying around, right before the encounter would start. Has anyone, during development, actually stopped and asked why they even bothered with forcing the player to pick his guns? The game would have ended up far less ridiculous if they had allowed you to carry a good arsenal, like a traditional shooter, and simply balance the ammo level.

Senka
8th Jul 2010, 05:16
You have to kill Walton Simons.

Incorrect, bad luck

pringlepower
8th Jul 2010, 06:42
Incorrect, bad luck

You can just avoid him for the entirety of area 51, at which point the explosion kills him.

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 12:22
You can just avoid him for the entirety of area 51, at which point the explosion kills him.

Yeah, but he has a goddamn Plasma Rifle and a Dragon's Tooth. It was far more useful just to get him out of the way outside Area 51, if not the submarine base.

Fluffis
8th Jul 2010, 12:30
You can just avoid him for the entirety of area 51, at which point the explosion kills him.

^^^ This. I always thought this nicely poetic. Destroying the puppet along with his puppet master, using their own weapons to do it.

Pinky_Powers
8th Jul 2010, 12:44
your man in the missle silo (who I think you could knock unconscious anyway)

lol. Yeah, I killed him while riding the Lift to meet up with him. While the Lift was still moving I saw this dude standing prominently atop a platform, and I fired a single GEP round at him. Cha'ching! Experience points! Mission completed! :eek:

VectorM
8th Jul 2010, 13:50
I just knew it... I just damn knew it... (Edit to clarify: Sometimes I just hate when I'm right.)

Yeah, I am sure this one thing will ruin the entire game. I am also sure you would have HATED the original if it had boss fights like this.

68_pie
8th Jul 2010, 14:42
Yeah, I am sure this one thing will ruin the entire game. I am also sure you would have HATED the original if it had boss fights like this.

Because that's clearly what he said.

PenguinsFriend
8th Jul 2010, 15:34
Sheesh - the way this game is going we'll just be able to stab the "bosses" in their giant anime eyes!

I wonder what other lame ass things they could to to screw this game up and make it 12 year old player friendly? :mad2:

Boss fights should make sense and be integral to the story - not just show up at the end of every level where it takes 30,000 friggen rounds from an AK74 just to kill the giant squid and advance the story!

Fluffis
8th Jul 2010, 15:46
Yeah, I am sure this one thing will ruin the entire game. I am also sure you would have HATED the original if it had boss fights like this.

No... but I would have hated that aspect of it. Because it would have been an element of restriction in a game where freedom.of choice is one of the main themes.

PenguinsFriend
8th Jul 2010, 16:26
No... but I would have hated that aspect of it. Because it would have been an element of restriction in a game where freedom.of choice is one of the main themes.

I recall an interview with Harvey or Warren about a year after DE launched. He (whoever it was) said that as open ended as the game was intended to be, they did some things "wrong." They didn't realise, for example, that so many players would spend countless hours reloading trying to get past Gunther at the metro stop.

It was great that we thought we could, but the game wasn't designed to let us escape that event.

It sounds like boos kills are going to be similar to the above for DE:HR. So my question is, if Edios could read the interview with Warren/Harvey and acknowldege the part where he said they made a mistake with the forced outcome, would they (Edios) decide to change their intended force-fight-boos-kill idea?

VectorM
8th Jul 2010, 16:59
Because that's clearly what he said.

Because clearly you've missed the obvious point.


No... but I would have hated that aspect of it. Because it would have been an element of restriction in a game where freedom.of choice is one of the main themes.

No, you would not hate it one bit. If the game had those forced bosses 10 years ago, you would have regarded it as a nit pick flaw at best. Do you see people whining about the fact that you are forced to escape from UNATCO? That you are forced to finish the game at Area 51? That you are forced to fight against UNATCO? You do see people like that, but I don't think anyone hates the game for any of those factors and wouldn't take away even 1 point from their perfect score for the game.

FFS, you even see people complaining that HR might have you choosing missions from your apartment. What is wrong with choosing what and when to play in a game like this? Oh, wait, it was not made like that in the first game, bla-blah...



It sounds like boos kills are going to be similar to the above for DE:HR. So my question is, if Eidos could read the interview with Warren/Harvey and acknowldege the part where he said they made a mistake with the forced outcome, would they (Eidos) decide to change their intended force-fight-boos-kill idea?

The problem had 0 to do with the fact that it was forced and all to do with the way they presented it. had they made it very clear that there is simply no way going out of this, or making it so that you give up in the conversation it self, then it would have been fine. Instead, people just tried shooting the guy form the stair and what not.

And either whine that you can't prevent things like that explosion that FORCES you to get the robotic implants, or shut up about the bosses already.

Fluffis
8th Jul 2010, 17:25
I recall an interview with Harvey or Warren about a year after DE launched. He (whoever it was) said that as open ended as the game was intended to be, they did some things "wrong." They didn't realise, for example, that so many players would spend countless hours reloading trying to get past Gunther at the metro stop.

It was great that we thought we could, but the game wasn't designed to let us escape that event.

It sounds like boos kills are going to be similar to the above for DE:HR. So my question is, if Eidos could read the interview with Warren/Harvey and acknowldege the part where he said they made a mistake with the forced outcome, would they (Eidos) decide to change their intended force-fight-boos-kill idea?

But th Gunther event didn't force you to fight or surrender peacefully. You could choose to fight, and be injured at the start of the next part, or surrender and be at full health. You see the difference? The best choice is not to fight, but you can choose to fight if you feel like it.

Fluffis
8th Jul 2010, 17:43
No, you would not hate it one bit. If the game had those forced bosses 10 years ago, you would have regarded it as a nit pick flaw at best. Do you see people whining about the fact that you are forced to escape from UNATCO? That you are forced to finish the game at Area 51? That you are forced to fight against UNATCO? You do see people like that, but I don't think anyone hates the game for any of those factors and wouldn't take away even 1 point from their perfect score for the game


I've hated the concept of "boss fights" since the first time I fought one, about 20 years ago. ( edit: actually it's closer to 30.)

Don't you dare to presume to know me.

Irate_Iguana
8th Jul 2010, 21:33
And either whine that you can't prevent things like that explosion that FORCES you to get the robotic implants, or shut up about the bosses already.

Oh hai, you must be new here. That was actually one point of complaint. Before any trailer we were under the impression that augs would be completely optional and that the choice to become augmented and accepting the attached social stigma would be a major gameplay and story choice. People were unhappy when it turned out there was no choice.

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 21:45
Oh hai, you must be new here. That was actually one point of complaint. Before any trailer we were under the impression that augs would be completely optional and that the choice to become augmented and accepting the attached social stigma would be a major gameplay and story choice. People were unhappy when it turned out there was no choice.

Wouldn't that be a rather large departure from the story concept of Deus Ex? As in, guy is augmented and ends up being used by the very people that made him a little bit superhuman?

Irate_Iguana
9th Jul 2010, 08:18
Wouldn't that be a rather large departure from the story concept of Deus Ex? As in, guy is augmented and ends up being used by the very people that made him a little bit superhuman?

It would certainly be. Seeing the social effects from being augmented is all fine and dandy. However the choice wasn't made by the player so he is looking at from a railroad perspective; experiencing the story rather than living it. If you as the player have to make to conscious decision to give up part of your humanity for increased performance and the associated social stigmas it could make telling the story much more involved.

In DX the choice wasn't that of the protagonist. He was made that way almost from birth. The augs were unobtrusive and hardly noticeable. The mechs on the other hand did have to make that choice. It affected almost all of them in a serious manner. It could have been nice to see Adam have to make that same choice and suffer the same consequences.

VectorM
9th Jul 2010, 10:00
I've hated the concept of "boss fights" since the first time I fought one, about 20 years ago. ( edit: actually it's closer to 30.)

Don't you dare to presume to know me.

Sure you did buddy, sure you did. What's next, you hated illogical physics since the first time you played Ninja Gaiden? You hated magical 1 item healing since the first time you played Castlevania? :lol:


In DX the choice wasn't that of the protagonist. He was made that way almost from birth. The augs were unobtrusive and hardly noticeable. The mechs on the other hand did have to make that choice. It affected almost all of them in a serious manner. It could have been nice to see Adam have to make that same choice and suffer the same consequences.

Does the choice between having no hands at all and having robotic ones seem any bit fair to you?

ThePrecursor
9th Jul 2010, 10:44
Does the choice between having no hands at all and having robotic ones seem any bit fair to you?

This. The fact that Adam looses his arms, and the fact that it wasn't his choice, is what drives him to investigate and whatnot.

Cylon
9th Jul 2010, 10:55
You didn't like the original Deus Ex much, did you?

You have to kill Anna Navarra. You have to kill Gunther Hermann. You have to kill Walton Simons. And you have to kill Bob Page in some fashion.

actually, you could avoid killing anna. youtube nokills (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsh24FmYlNQ) and you could avoid killing walton directly, cant remember how though' un shure about Gunther.

Edit: found this 'tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzP2fNIkXZQ) video avoiding Gunther

IOOI
9th Jul 2010, 11:06
And either whine that you can't prevent things like that explosion that FORCES you to get the robotic implants, or shut up about the bosses already.

Erm... what explosion? :scratch:

Irate_Iguana
9th Jul 2010, 11:11
Does the choice between having no hands at all and having robotic ones seem any bit fair to you?

Way to not think about this. Now that they have decided that Adam is going to get mandatory augmentations the game is set up so that the only possible outcome from the raid is Adam losing his arms and needing augs. Back when we were told that you could go without augs there was no mention of a cutscene crippling the protagonist. It was presented as a choice the player would make during normal play. The trade-off would have been between increased power and social acceptance.

neoWilks
9th Jul 2010, 12:19
actually, you could avoid killing anna. this 'tube (http://www.youtube.com
Edit: found [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzP2fNIkXZQ) video avoiding Gunther
To clarify, this doesn't actually work. I've snuck past Gunther before too, but Walton's hologram refuses to talk to you. Unless talking to Walton isn't required to progress the story, but I thought it was. :/

mad_red
9th Jul 2010, 19:06
No, you would not hate it one bit.

...
I don't think anyone hates the game for any of those factors and wouldn't take away even 1 point from their perfect score for the game.


I disagree with this mentality.

Sure, taking away an option won't detract very much from all the good parts of the game. It won't make the game less hated.

The point is not to make the game less hated, however. It's to allow more people to love it. Adding in possibilities that people can discover for themselves (even difficult ones that require 100s of reloads) will allow more people love the game more. If you don't like exploring possibilities, there's always your trusty GEP gun.



The problem had 0 to do with the fact that it was forced and all to do with the way they presented it. had they made it very clear that there is simply no way going out of this, or making it so that you give up in the conversation it self, then it would have been fine. Instead, people just tried shooting the guy form the stair and what not.

I disagree some more buddy. Most people like the ambiguous presentation just fine. Case in point: Paul's rescue. The Gunther scene is fine by me and doesn't need any changes. The only thing that could have made that better is adding a zero-body count option and other creative gameplay possibilities. No need to present them, either.


And either whine that you can't prevent things like that explosion that FORCES you to get the robotic implants, or shut up about the bosses already.

Sure, why not? I'll whine that having a parallel storyline in which you're not forced to become augmented can only add to the DX experience. If the programmers don't include that I'm not gonna blame them; it's their budget and their creative license. Far from it for me to tell them to either agree with me or shut up.

PenguinsFriend
9th Jul 2010, 19:59
The problem had 0 to do with the fact that it was forced and all to do with the way they presented it. had they made it very clear that there is simply no way going out of this, or making it so that you give up in the conversation it self, then it would have been fine. Instead, people just tried shooting the guy form the stair and what not.

And either whine that you can't prevent things like that explosion that FORCES you to get the robotic implants, or shut up about the bosses already.

Well I guess we know what choice you made between being a total as$ and a giant douche, eh? :rolleyes:

Fluffis
9th Jul 2010, 20:37
Sure you did buddy, sure you did. What's next, you hated illogical physics since the first time you played Ninja Gaiden? You hated magical 1 item healing since the first time you played Castlevania? :lol:


You arrogant prick. You know nothing about me.

I've always hated "boss-fights", though for different reasons, over the years. One thing has always been there, though: they disrupt the flow of the game.

I've never even played those two games. I'm not a console-jockey.

Now just do me a favour, and shut up. Arrogance is not a very endearing trait, and I'd rather not end up genuinely hating someone on this board.

VectorM
9th Jul 2010, 21:15
You arrogant prick. You know nothing about me.

I've always hated "boss-fights", though for different reasons, over the years. One thing has always been there, though: they disrupt the flow of the game.


Well, I am an arrogant prick in your mind already, so I will go on and say that you probably had a bad taste form boss fights because you got your ass handed to ya :rasp: So this happened 20, even 30 years ago and you were thinking "Well this really disrupts the flow of the game" when you were 5? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure :rolleyes:



I've never even played those two games. I'm not a console-jockey.

YAY, you have a limited view of video games, how unbiased you must be :nut:

And clearly, ONLY the concole-jockeys have played those 2 games :mad2:


The point is not to make the game less hated, however. It's to allow more people to love it. Adding in possibilities that people can discover for themselves (even difficult ones that require 100s of reloads) will allow more people love the game more. If you don't like exploring possibilities, there's always your trusty GEP gun.

Who the Hell talks like this?

"The point is to make the game less hated. When you do X the game becomes less hated and people love it more". Are you from Mars or something?

pringlepower
9th Jul 2010, 21:31
Way to not think about this. Now that they have decided that Adam is going to get mandatory augmentations the game is set up so that the only possible outcome from the raid is Adam losing his arms and needing augs. Back when we were told that you could go without augs there was no mention of a cutscene crippling the protagonist. It was presented as a choice the player would make during normal play. The trade-off would have been between increased power and social acceptance.

Just like JC didn't have a choice to defect from UNACTO or not, sometimes major plot decisions can be made for you, as long as they're done right to motivate the player and move them forwards. While I would've preferred the choice, the mech augs might work to drive Adam in his quest, since whoever he's looking for had such a huge impact on his life.

Fluffis
9th Jul 2010, 21:34
Well, I am an arrogant prick in your mind already, so I will go on and say that you probably had a bad taste form boss fights because you got your ass handed to ya :rasp: So this happened 20, even 30 years ago and you were thinking "Well this really disrupts the flow of the game" when you were 5?

I'm done with you.

Pretentious Old Man.
9th Jul 2010, 21:57
Well, I am an arrogant prick in your mind already, so I will go on and say that you probably had a bad taste form boss fights because you got your ass handed to ya :rasp: So this happened 20, even 30 years ago and you were thinking "Well this really disrupts the flow of the game" when you were 5? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure :rolleyes:



YAY, you have a limited view of video games, how unbiased you must be :nut:

And clearly, ONLY the concole-jockeys have played those 2 games :mad2:



Who the Hell talks like this?

"The point is to make the game less hated. When you do X the game becomes less hated and people love it more". Are you from Mars or something?

He's calling you an arrogant prick because you presumed to tell him that he didn't really dislike boss fights. To then go on to say words to the effect of "lol you are old and lol you are biased because you don't play console games therefore you are biased and are clearly too retarded to get the awesomeness of boss battles" just makes you look like an even more arrogant prick. Try explaining why you think it doesn't interrupt flow, or why a tired and over-used game mechanic needs to be inserted here.

Irate_Iguana
9th Jul 2010, 22:49
Just like JC didn't have a choice to defect from UNACTO or not, sometimes major plot decisions can be made for you, as long as they're done right to motivate the player and move them forwards. While I would've preferred the choice, the mech augs might work to drive Adam in his quest, since whoever he's looking for had such a huge impact on his life.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really have a problem with being forced into a storyline like that. It would have been nice to be able to make the choice ourselves, but I don't mind just going along with it all and seeing what the writers have come up with. Still, I'd like to have seen the entire game take into account an augmented and baseline Adam.

mad_red
9th Jul 2010, 23:59
Who the Hell talks like this?

"The point is to make the game less hated. When you do X the game becomes less hated and people love it more". Are you from Mars or something?

Are you saying that you have difficulty understanding my post? If you quote the part that you don't understand, I can try and explain it for you.

Marses
10th Jul 2010, 02:03
You people arguing about being forced to be mechanically augmented realize it's a dramatic choice that's meant to put you in Adam Jensen's shoes, right? He had no choice. You had no choice. Very simple.

Fluffis
10th Jul 2010, 02:07
You people arguing about being forced to be mechanically augmented realize it's a dramatic choice that's meant to put you in Adam Jensen's shoes, right? He had no choice. You had no choice. Very simple.

Are people arguing about that? That's kind of... old, isn't it?

Romeo
10th Jul 2010, 03:14
Are people arguing about that? That's kind of... old, isn't it?
It's so ten minutes ago. lol

On topic, I don't consider the decision to force the initial aug upon you to be a bad one. I consider it a great one, actually. As like the gentleman above me said, it transmits the message that you were upgraded without your consent; That you're a guinea pig.

Fluffis
10th Jul 2010, 03:31
It's so ten minutes ago. lol


Exactly! :)



On topic, I don't consider the decision to force the initial aug upon you to be a bad one. I consider it a great one, actually. As like the gentleman above me said, it transmits the message that you were upgraded without your consent; That you're a guinea pig.

Yeah, that part is a no-brainer for me. Without it, the whole motivation for the game would be lost. And also that Icarus-connection and all that would be... useless.

For me, it's the possible forcing of additional augs that could start to bug me (since they replace a pure skill-system). I've done several runs of DX without even turning on my light, let alone adding any other augs. It's so liberating to be able to do that if I want. But... ehe... get back in the can, little worms. Never mind me. I'll just sit over here for a while.

neoWilks
10th Jul 2010, 04:27
Deus Ex isn't about freedom in some absolute sense. It's about freedom to approach the situations you are presented with in a myriad of different directions. So I feel it's essential to maximize the options for the player at every point in the story. Examples being: Avoidable boss fights, boss fights with multiple solutions that play to different strengths, the much-lauded multiple pathways, etc.

This sort of ties into the whole cutscene business many are worried about. The cutscenes are taking away options: forcing me to dive through a window to avoid a bomb, forcing me into enemy encounters I could have avoided. I'll just repost something I wrote earlier.


For example, the bomb scene in the Demo footage. If instead of a video, you were presented with a countdown and multiple methods of escape: Punch through a wall; jump through the window; pull an Indy 4 and hide yourself in a lead safe, being flung from the explosion, and emerging 50 feet away to take in the spectacle; Or christ, maybe even disarm the bomb itself, preventing the whole situation entirely.

I can't see an approach like this as anything, but an improvement.

Concerning the Gunther encounter in Deus Ex when you are captured and locked up in Unatco. This is one of my major criticisms of the game. A game that gives the player options left and right removes player determined outcome at one of the most important parts of the game. There is really no reason (other than something like deadlines or budget constraints) why you shouldn't have been able to fight your way out of the subway, killing Gunther, and still have made the revelation that Unatco and MJ12 are one.

Jock could have picked you up, said Paul is being held at some MJ12 facility and dropped you off somewhere to infiltrate the base. Even something like a short, single pathway sewer system that drops you right into the cell you'd have started in anyways would be preferable to completely arrested control.

super...
10th Jul 2010, 07:58
Absolute freedom means the story becomes about a dick head who is just trying things to see if he can get away with'em, thats what IW was about.

however i would like a way to non lethal the bosses.

but i understand if from a story perspective they need the events to happen. i mean they could have Adam take down the boss characters non lethal way and then come up with a way to blame their death on Adam anyway.

It would be neat if you went non-lethal on a boss character and then had to watch their employer execute the failed boss with a remote kill switch or better yet, a gun to their unconscious head.

Irate_Iguana
10th Jul 2010, 11:00
You people arguing about being forced to be mechanically augmented realize it's a dramatic choice that's meant to put you in Adam Jensen's shoes, right? He had no choice. You had no choice. Very simple.

Now it's a dramatic choice in order to pull the player into the game. When we first heard news about the story the general idea was that they were going to focus heavily on what it meant to be a mech aug. What it meant to sacrifice your humanity for increased performance. Why anybody would want to be a mechanical golem in a time where you are feared and persecuted. With the proper backdrop the choice to willingly give up part of your humanity could have easily made the whole thing much more dramatic. Choices and consequences. Just like Gunther had to live with the fact that the Nano agents were going to replace the Mechs.

Now, like I said before I don't mind the fact that they went with the route they went. I'm just saying that the other route could have been equally or even more interesting.



On topic, I don't consider the decision to force the initial aug upon you to be a bad one. I consider it a great one, actually. As like the gentleman above me said, it transmits the message that you were upgraded without your consent; That you're a guinea pig.

You aren't a guinea pig. There are plenty of other mechs walking around the game world. The trailer was stuffed with them. Adam was upgraded without his consent, but in the current story it was either that or die. Not much of a choice. What I'm wondering is how they are going to present the whole prejudice angle now. Adam isn't facing the consequences of his own choices, he is simply following the consequences of the story.

Now again, I'm not saying that this is a bad move on the part of EM. To me it would have been very interesting to see how the story could have developed based on Adam's augmentation status.



Yeah, that part is a no-brainer for me. Without it, the whole motivation for the game would be lost. And also that Icarus-connection and all that would be... useless.

The motivation for the inquiry Adam is doing can be easily replaced. The first story hook was finding out why the Spec Op Commandos had security blueprints from Adam's hand.

The Icarus connection would have actually made more sense with a choice between augmentation or not. Icarus died as a result of his excitement after being fitted with wings. That seems to be at odds with being augmented against your will.

Fluffis
10th Jul 2010, 12:14
Absolute freedom means the story becomes about a dick head who is just trying things to see if he can get away with'em, thats what IW was about.


JC could be a real dick as well. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09vVF-Hvykg)



The motivation for the inquiry Adam is doing can be easily replaced. The first story hook was finding out why the Spec Op Commandos had security blueprints from Adam's hand.


But having a Deus Ex game about a character that is not augmented at all kind of defeats the purpose of the series.



The Icarus connection would have actually made more sense with a choice between augmentation or not. Icarus died as a result of his excitement after being fitted with wings. That seems to be at odds with being augmented against your will.


Icarus didn't have much of a choice either. "Use the wings, or die as an exile here on Crete."

Daedalus Ciarán
10th Jul 2010, 13:18
But having a Deus Ex game about a character that is not augmented at all kind of defeats the purpose of the series.

Icarus didn't have much of a choice either. "Use the wings, or die as an exile here on Crete."

The purpose of the series was to play as an augmented individual? I thought the purpose of the game was to create a world of choice and consequence heavily infused with the question of technology's role in society? Surely then adding more choice and consequences is only a good thing?

The Icarus story, it was about using technology for freedom. So it's more: "Use the wings to be free, or remain imprisoned on this tiny island." Then of course the moral of the story is Icarus becoming too comfortable with the wings, over estimating himself and the technology's ability, thus leading to his death. No matter what happened Icarus would die, it was just a matter of where and how he died. Viewing it metaphorically, which is the way you're supposed to if you want it to relate to DX:HR, the wings represent technology's potential to make humanity free beyond the bounds of our narrow, natural island of abilities. Icarus died outside those boundaries because of his choice. But he did have the choice to remain natural, though bound to the island. You might view that as imprisonment and not a real choice, but it is.

The choice between turning your arms into wings, and simply walking everywhere is a legitimate choice, even if the lack of wings limits your movement and thus limits your freedom.

Overall I think the lack of the option to not augment makes the philosophy of the game weaker, or more narrow, than the original, which is only a bad thing. The first game, you could argue for hours over whether or not the game is in favour of augmentation, or against it. That's the mark of great writing; you can present an argument for both sides. Compare that to DX:HR where, from the outset, you're a victim. You lose your arms in the attack and have augmentation forced upon you. Thus anyone who claims to be your enemy based on your augmentation immediately comes across as a cold, unreasonable little ****. There's not much room to allow for an opposing argument really. But then, who knows, EM may turn it around. Personally though, I think the lack of choice regarding this basic decision means that the game will more than likely have a transhumanist slant. That's not to say that that's a bad thing, just that it's less clever than the original in some aspects.

The ability to use skill points points out that the technology you receive doesn't make you perfect. I think it's Manderley says, in the beginning, even JC would be nothing with drills and training. Keeping that in mind, how can we say the same about DX:HR when you can't learn anything new in the game, unless you have augmentations? The idea of augmentations giving you skills (such as the takedowns which will cost you energy) implies quite heavily that the game will be transhumanist, rather than allowing for varying interpretations.

The 'simple' choice to pick augmentations over AJ's natural abilities is a pretty important choice.

Fluffis
10th Jul 2010, 13:34
Wow... I said all that?


The purpose of the series was to play as an augmented individual? I thought the purpose of the game was to create a world of choice and consequence heavily infused with the question of technology's role in society? Surely then adding more choice and consequences is only a good thing?


Both JC and Alex were augmented to start with. They didn't have a choice either. That's all I meant. The games so far have been about what choices you make, given your current situation. For instance: will you augment yourself further, or will you stay as "pure" as possible and refuse?



The Icarus story, it was about using technology for freedom. So it's more: "Use the wings to be free, or remain imprisoned on this tiny island." Then of course the moral of the story is Icarus becoming too comfortable with the wings, over estimating himself and the technology's ability, thus leading to his death. No matter what happened Icarus would die, it was just a matter of where and how he died. Viewing it metaphorically, which is the way you're supposed to if you want it to relate to DX:HR, the wings represent technology's potential to make humanity free beyond the bounds of our narrow, natural island of abilities. Icarus died outside those boundaries because of his choice. But he did have the choice to remain natural, though bound to the island. You might view that as imprisonment and not a real choice, but it is.

The choice between turning your arms into wings, and simply walking everywhere is a legitimate choice, even if the lack of wings limits your movement and thus limits your freedom.


It was imprisonment, to Icarus and Daedalus. They were exiles. Sticking around was not really an option, once they figured out that they had a chance to escape.



Overall I think the lack of the option to not augment makes the philosophy of the game weaker, or more narrow, than the original, which is only a bad thing. The first game, you could argue for hours over whether or not the game is in favour of augmentation, or against it. That's the mark of great writing; you can present an argument for both sides. Compare that to DX:HR where, from the outset, you're a victim. You lose your arms in the attack and have augmentation forced upon you. Thus anyone who claims to be your enemy based on your augmentation immediately comes across as a cold, unreasonable little ****. There's not much room to allow for an opposing argument really. But then, who knows, EM may turn it around. Personally though, I think the lack of choice regarding this basic decision means that the game will more than likely have a transhumanist slant. That's not to say that that's a bad thing, just that it's less clever than the original in some aspects.


Like I wrote above: JC was augmented when the game started (IFF, Light and Infolink + "My vision is augmented"). The only choice you had was if you wanted to add more.



The ability to use skill points points out that the technology you receive doesn't make you perfect. I think it's Manderley says, in the beginning, even JC would be nothing with drills and training. Keeping that in mind, how can we say the same about DX:HR when you can't learn anything new in the game, unless you have augmentations? The idea of augmentations giving you skills (such as the takedowns which will cost you energy) implies quite heavily that the game will be transhumanist, rather than allowing for varying interpretations.


There, you're preaching to the choir. I want the skills, as a complement to augmentations. Not having them removes an element of choice from the game. If you don't want to have more augmentations, Adam will stagnate. This is not a good thing, no matter what people say.

Irate_Iguana
10th Jul 2010, 14:54
Icarus didn't have much of a choice either. "Use the wings, or die as an exile here on Crete."

The choice part of the myth is pretty irrelevant. What matters is that technology was used as a means to gain freedom. The overexcitement of being more than human and pushing the technology too far resulted in the death of Icarus. That is the part that matters when it comes to DX.



Both JC and Alex were augmented to start with. They didn't have a choice either. That's all I meant. The games so far have been about what choices you make, given your current situation. For instance: will you augment yourself further, or will you stay as "pure" as possible and refuse?

JC and Alex were Nano Agents. Low profile augs barely noticeable. Even under pretty close scrutiny could they pass as completely human. Being augmented against your will or choosing it is much less invasive when it comes to these types of augs. Nothing really changes as far as the general public is concerned.

Adam is being mech augmented. His arms, eyes and a piece of his head have been replaced. He had his sunglasses implanted and other work done on his body. It looks extremely invasive and is immediately noticeable. Adam is clearly not pure human anymore. Remember the two NSF guys talking on Liberty Island about Gunther? They commented on the extreme mutilation done by doctors and whether people were now being reduced to upgrades and version numbers. Choosing something like this is much more involved than anything that happened to the Nano Agents.

The current situation of JC and Alex is nothing compared to the current situation of Adam. He has permanently lost his humanity and it is plain for all to see. Clinging desperately to the last vestiges of humanity or foregoing them are pretty much the same in his situation. The treatment he will receive will be the same. The choice Adam would have faced if he would have been given the option would have been much more difficult than the same choice given to JC or Alex.

Fluffis
10th Jul 2010, 15:04
Clinging desperately to the last vestiges of humanity or foregoing them are pretty much the same in his situation.

I disagree with this. Have you read "Interview with the Vampire?" It deals with the same dilemma (and so does, to a slightly lesser extent, the movie), once Louis has become a vampire. He fights desperately to keep whatever humanity he has left, because he doesn't want to lose himself.

It may seem like the choice wouldn't matter but it really does. External reactions will be the same, perhaps, but the fight Adam has to fight is inside. It all depends on whether Adam is ready to lose himself.

Irate_Iguana
10th Jul 2010, 16:03
It may seem like the choice wouldn't matter but it really does. External reactions will be the same, perhaps, but the fight Adam has to fight is inside. It all depends on whether Adam is ready to lose himself.

This works fantastically in a book or in a film. We are playing a game. There isn't a hell of a lot of introspective dialog going on. It's going to be a very tall order for EM to produce such an internal struggle.

Fluffis
10th Jul 2010, 16:18
This works fantastically in a book or in a film. We are playing a game. There isn't a hell of a lot of introspective dialog going on. It's going to be a very tall order for EM to produce such an internal struggle.

They don't really have to. It's a roleplaying game. I was just illustrating one of the possible reasons behind the choice of whether or not to augment further. Also: You never know what is going to turn up in conversations and cutscenes.

What's interesting is that you brought up one of the main reasons why I think being auged at the start will work:



The choice part of the myth is pretty irrelevant. What matters is that technology was used as a means to gain freedom. The overexcitement of being more than human and pushing the technology too far resulted in the death of Icarus. That is the part that matters when it comes to DX.


Exactly. The choice wasn't really a choice for Icarus and Daedalus either. They were exiles, thus prisoners away from home. They felt they had to get out of there. Staying was not an option, once they found the means to get out.

You see, I think it may actually be possible that you will "get burned" (in one way or another) if you rely too much on the technology. That's what the Icarus-Daedalus-connection meant in DX (over-reliance on the AI:s, and other tech). Unless EM screwed up royally, I think we will see this in DX:HR as well. Only this time it may be on a more personal level.

pringlepower
10th Jul 2010, 20:01
They don't really have to. It's a roleplaying game. I was just illustrating one of the possible reasons behind the choice of whether or not to augment further. Also: You never know what is going to turn up in conversations and cutscenes.

What's interesting is that you brought up one of the main reasons why I think being auged at the start will work:



Exactly. The choice wasn't really a choice for Icarus and Daedalus either. They were exiles, thus prisoners away from home. They felt they had to get out of there. Staying was not an option, once they found the means to get out.

You see, I think it may actually be possible that you will "get burned" (in one way or another) if you rely too much on the technology. That's what the Icarus-Daedalus-connection meant in DX (over-reliance on the AI:s, and other tech). Unless EM screwed up royally, I think we will see this in DX:HR as well. Only this time it may be on a more personal level.

Well just go the Daedalus route and fly to safety. Safely.

mad_red
10th Jul 2010, 21:12
Death, captivity, humanity, are real choices. They're just not necessarily good or reasonable choices, but they could be peaceful and content choices - responses to violence or crises are myriad. However, being operated while you're unconscious without prior consent is simply not a choice - however, it does create choices for Adam...

But that's just a tangent. I'm pretty sure it's alright if Adam Jensen starts out augmented - few people will take issue with that, because most people are more concerned with how EM runs with that premise.

What I would like to point out that having choices is a good thing. Some people take it very personally when I say that. They take it to imply that if we wan't to play an unaugmented AJ, that means an augmented AJ is a bad thing, and they take it as a judgement on my part reflecting upon themselves. If we want more choices, we're not necessarily condemning the choices we already have or that have been made for us. We're not judging you for choosing the regen aug or anything like that. Giving you more crayons doesn't make your old drawings crap.

Our choices define our creativity and potential as human beings, and it's nice to have more of them. Ultimately, if we can't play AJ as a regular Joe, that's up to the devs and their budget.

Dead-Eye
11th Jul 2010, 00:51
News to me.

singularity
13th Jul 2010, 04:59
The argument may be valid, but for once I think this fear which ricwhite brings up is actually a positive thing towards the game.

I like the idea that someone who follows a social or hacking path for all of the game is punished for it, or at least very challenged, in some areas where following a warior path would have been preferable. I especially despise games which leave you an absolute freedom to decide how to do anything, and never punish you for the choices you've made, as if all choices were equally valid, in all situations.

I bring up Fallout 3 a lot, but it's the most recent example of this annoyance. You have hacking skills? Good, because we have a terminal rigged to that locked door. Oh you don't hack? Well no worries, you can pick the lock. No picking? Look around, the key is in the drawer next door, where the lone guard is sleeping almost unarmed. It'll just take you two more seconds to get it.

If you go camping in the woods, and you don't bring a lighter or matches, you'll have to create your initial spark. If you're good at it, it'll be almost as quick as throwing on a match. If you suck at it, you'll swear a lot, and when the fire finally catches you'll feel fantastic for it. It's a simplistic example, but it's true with any situation in life, and as such, should be reflected in a game where consequences are supposed to be a central theme.

And yes, in the original DX, there were many moments when taking a decision or a path meant going out of your way on a harder path, and the experience was all the better for it. That's the main idea behind making choices.

I agree with you 110%. That is fantastic game design, in my book.
However, without upsetting a few of the DX purists out there, I would like to point out that DX was very similar to the system you describe (the "Fallout 3 system"). Don't have a high enough hacking skill to get through a door? Multitools are just as good. Multitool skill not high enough/ don't have enough? It's ok -- someone will probably tell you the code with the right dialogue options. Already screwed that up? That's fine, I'm sure the code was left on a data pad around here somewhere.

Same with several side quests. Don't have the ammo/ skills to fight the baddies to get the Item Needed To Complete Quest? It's cool. You can hack a turret to take them down for you. No hacking skills? There is a complex series of vents that will lead to the item eventually. Don't want to crawl in the vents? Maybe with the right dialogue options, the bad guys can become your friends?

Same goes with item acquisition. Want that shiny scope? There are probably 5 different ways to get it, from buying it, stealing it, killing for it, intimidating for it or buying it later.

It wasn't a problem with DX way back when -- but today, with every game out there giving us "choices" it would be nice to see more games that give us "consequences".

FrankCSIS
13th Jul 2010, 05:23
In retrospect, you're absolutely right in that many times other solutions were offered rather simply. Somehow though, I never thought they were as obvious as what we've been playing later on, and quite a few times forced you into paths you would have never taken otherwise. Of course, it could be that at the time I was too young to notice the alternatives as easily.

Regardless, I feel they were on an interesting path, which was somehow reversed over time. Another unexpected twist in game development for anyone who's ever tried to predict the future of games back in 2000.

singularity
13th Jul 2010, 05:34
In retrospect, you're absolutely right in that many times other solutions were offered rather simply. Somehow though, I never thought they were as obvious as what we've been playing later on, and quite a few times forced you into paths you would have never taken otherwise. Of course, it could be that at the time I was too young to notice the alternatives as easily.

Regardless, I feel they were on an interesting path, which was somehow reversed over time. Another unexpected twist in game development for anyone who's ever tried to predict the future of games back in 2000.

Haha -- you can say that again. Back in 2000, I saw the industry moving closer and closer to "real-life simulators" Games like GTA3 and Sim City/ The Sims kept my thinking along that track for some time. Not quite where we are today, eh? :)

pringlepower
13th Jul 2010, 06:23
I agree with you 110%. That is fantastic game design, in my book.
However, without upsetting a few of the DX purists out there, I would like to point out that DX was very similar to the system you describe (the "Fallout 3 system"). Don't have a high enough hacking skill to get through a door? Multitools are just as good. Multitool skill not high enough/ don't have enough? It's ok -- someone will probably tell you the code with the right dialogue options. Already screwed that up? That's fine, I'm sure the code was left on a data pad around here somewhere.

Same with several side quests. Don't have the ammo/ skills to fight the baddies to get the Item Needed To Complete Quest? It's cool. You can hack a turret to take them down for you. No hacking skills? There is a complex series of vents that will lead to the item eventually. Don't want to crawl in the vents? Maybe with the right dialogue options, the bad guys can become your friends?

Same goes with item acquisition. Want that shiny scope? There are probably 5 different ways to get it, from buying it, stealing it, killing for it, intimidating for it or buying it later.

It wasn't a problem with DX way back when -- but today, with every game out there giving us "choices" it would be nice to see more games that give us "consequences".

You missed explode the door.