PDA

View Full Version : Well this all seems very familiar



reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 12:04
A lot of the talk around here reminds me of back in the day on the No Mutants Allowed forums when Fallout 3 was announced.

All manner of individuals had plenty to say about it raping the franchise or whatever. They'd talk at length and in-depth about how the mechanics and viewpoint had been sacrificed at the altar of making money. Given the age and cynicism of the regular posters, any attempt to point out that what actually mattered in Fallout was never the mechanics or the viewpoint was throughly bashed as being an apologist argument for Bethesda.

Of course, Fallout 3 went on to be multiple GOTY and sold a bajillion, and it's still one of the only games I've ever sunk a legitimate 100 hours in other other the likes of SimCity or Civilisation. The NMA crowd more or less divided into two camps: those that, actually having played the game realised it was pretty good for an open-world RPG and kept the thematic awesomeness of an atomic-powered retro-future alive; and those that would maintain their original dogmatic stance come hell or high water.

It's only really the cult games that engender this sort of response, and for good reason. Both the original Fallouts and Deus Ex are huge, insurmountable monoliths in my gaming history. I adore both of these series (along with the likes of Thief or the above-mentioned SimCity and Civ) and they will always remain a significant part of my growing up. Both did some things exceptionally well but in retrospect had absolutely rubbish parts that we all ignored largely because this sort of thing was new and interesting. Did they deserve the universally high marks? Absolutely. Does that make them inviolate, untouchable and above all else completely resistant to someone bringing it to new audiences and updating it to how games generally are these days? Hell no.

Just like how the atomic age retro-futurism of Fallout was handily maintained in the 'reboot' of Fallout 3, as long as that conspiracy-laden edgy cyberpunk motif of Deus Ex is combined with a healthy number of tactical choices in large environments I don't really care. Throw a bit of Splinter Cell in there and give me actual proper cover mechanics that aren't just difficult due to horrific AI. Give me flashy dynamic melee stuff, because if I've got robot arms I sure as hell want to be able to punch through walls and snap a bunch of dudes. Give me "God was a dream of good government" and paranoia that actually impacts the storyline beyond a token choice at the end.

Oh, and please, please, give me more of guards walking backwards to keep line of sight on their surroundings (my all time "hells yeah" of the entire gameplay video).

Eidos wins this for me if they keep true to the things that people actually enjoyed in Deus Ex, not the absurdly antagonistic and nit-picking requirements of a few die-hards that won't buy the damned thing regardless.

/rant off.

sonicsidewinder
8th Jul 2010, 12:11
tell it preacher

Fluffis
8th Jul 2010, 12:26
Eidos wins this for me if they keep true to the things that people actually enjoyed in Deus Ex, not the absurdly antagonistic and nit-picking requirements of a few die-hards that won't buy the damned thing regardless.


You actually had me, until this sentence. Unfortunately, this showed me that you didn't have as much of a clue as you seemed to at the start. Those "absurdly antagonistic and nit-picking requirements" come from people who, most likely, are/were even more passionate about this game, than you. People who keenly remember watching IW turning into a complete mess, and who do not want that to happen to another game connected to one of the greatest games ever made.

Unfortunately, some of the "apologists" on this board, have taken the stance of "Yey, the franchise is being resurrected! Let's blindly accept everything they do to it!", which has forced the discussion to become antagonistic. Yeah, you heard me. I know that for me, at least, that standpoint is what has kept this forum from being able to actually discuss this game, from all possible angles, in a civilized way. Instead, when anyone expresses an opinion that is negative, the response has been to call them a "hater" or similar ("a few die-hards that won't buy the damned thing regardless", for instance).

Kodaemon
8th Jul 2010, 12:30
We're not nearly as bad as NMA, I'd say. We're somewhat concerned, sure, but aside from a few trolls it's just not that level of frothing-at-the-mouth insane hatemongering all around.

EDIT: Fluffis hit the nail on the head.

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 12:34
You actually had me, until this sentence. Unfortunately, this showed me that you didn't have as much of a clue as you seemed to at the start. Those "absurdly antagonistic and nit-picking requirements" come from people who, most likely, are/were even more passionate about this game, than you. People who keenly remember slowly watching IW turning into a complete mess, and who do not want that to happen to another game connected to one of the greatest games ever made.

Unfortunately, some of the "apologists" on this board, have taken the stance of "Yey, the franchise is being resurrected! Let's blindly accept everything they do to it!", which has forced the discussion to become antagonistic. Yeah, you heard me. I know that for me, at least, that standpoint is what has kept this forum from being able to actually discuss this game, from all possible angles, in a civilized way. Instead, when anyone expresses an opinion that is negative, the response has been to call them a "hater" or similar ("a few die-hards that won't buy the damned thing regardless", for instance).

Oh, and something else that happened on NMA was the old chestnut that ran thus - "You might be a fan, but not as big a fan as I am."

That doesn't constitute a position beyond people thinking they have a greater emotional investment than you. I clearly stated how important Deus Ex was to me as a gamer since 2000, but apparently that doesn't make me as much of a fan as some of you.

Call it an exercise in apologetics, but I'm happy to maintain the position that from what I've seen so far, it holds true to the spirit of Deus Ex, which was always a shooter with exceptional tactical choice that happened to be in a nicely paranoid cyberpunk environment.

I'm happy to debate specific points of argument, if that's what you're after.

Kodaemon
8th Jul 2010, 12:46
I mostly like what I've seen of the game so far, but I dislike some elements. So, tell me, am I not allowed criticism at all? Am I not allowed to discuss what I perceive as issues marring the positive impression? Does seeing and pointing out flaws automatically make me a hater?

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 12:59
I mostly like what I've seen of the game so far, but I dislike some elements. So, tell me, am I not allowed criticism at all? Am I not allowed to discuss what I perceive as issues marring the positive impression? Does seeing and pointing out flaws automatically make me a hater?

Nope, not at all.

But if you discuss things, don't presume to hold a pedestal. Don't assume that because a small echo-chamber reinforces a particular concept, that this is something that actually matters. It's where I was trying to go with the comparison to NMA.

Big pointers to the echo chamber would probably include calling it designed for console-tards (this was a great one to read along with on NMA), that the character's augs are totally overpowered despite the fact we know he was buffed for the E3 presentation (shades of having almost unending VATS in Fallout 3 being an issue here, despite it being again just for a presentation), and various nitpicking sort of things like that.

The truth is we don't really know how the game is going to be beyond a couple of things - it'll have 3rd person cover, the conversation system is still intact, melee looks to be more important, you still have tactical choices when doing a mission and that it's got a theme that reads as a homage to Blade Runner.

Edit: And other one is something I read here about Achievements. They're a requirement if you want to release it on the 360. They have no impact on the game whatsoever beyond giving you the option to chase a higher gamerscore. Categorising this sort of thing as the downfall of everything you know and love will probably get you in with the very special types over at NMA.

68_pie
8th Jul 2010, 13:06
hmm, I pretty much disagree with everything OP said about Fallout 3 and NMA. Many people have legitimate concerns about Fallout 3, and whilst you could have made a decent Fallout game with completely new mechanics and gameplay - Bethesda did not do this. My main complaint was that Bethesda hadn't got "Fallout". The humour and the atmosphere just weren't up to par. This was my main problem ahead of the fact that the writing was terrible and that it was awful as both an RPG and as a FPS.


Just like how the atomic age retro-futurism of Fallout was handily maintained in the 'reboot' of Fallout 3

Your opinion but...no. Just no.


as long as that conspiracy-laden edgy cyberpunk motif of Deus Ex is combined with a healthy number of tactical choices in large environments I don't really care. Throw a bit of Splinter Cell in there and give me actual proper cover mechanics that aren't just difficult due to horrific AI. Give me flashy dynamic melee stuff, because if I've got robot arms I sure as hell want to be able to punch through walls and snap a bunch of dudes. Give me "God was a dream of good government" and paranoia that actually impacts the storyline beyond a token choice at the end

Yeah, if they actually manage to do this then it would be great but based on what we've seen so far I am far from convinced.

Edit:


melee looks to be more important

By which you mean that there is no melee combat other than takedowns.

PS. Mechanics/gameplay do matter.

PPS. VATS was all sorts of over powered.

Kodaemon
8th Jul 2010, 13:14
The truth is we don't really know how the game is going to be beyond a couple of things

Not that again. "Oh don't discuss the game until you play it!" :rolleyes:

We know A LOT. Not everything, sure. Some gameplay aspects are still pretty much a mystery. But don't tell me we're not allowed to discuss and criticise. And nitpick. I am fully aware that the presentation ran on cheats. But the general direction is obvious. Same with VATS by the way, which is ridiculously overpowered. (I like Fallout 3 by the way, but it's much better with rebalancing and complexity/difficulty adding mods.)

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 13:17
hmm, I pretty much disagree with everything OP said about Fallout 3 and NMA. Many people have legitimate concerns about Fallout 3, and whilst you could have made a decent Fallout game with completely new mechanics and gameplay - Bethesda did not do this. My main complaint was that Bethesda hadn't got "Fallout". The humour and the atmosphere just weren't up to par. This was my main problem ahead of the fact that the writing was terrible and that it was awful as both an RPG and as a FPS.

Writing was Bethesda-grade which is more or less as you'd expect for about a bajillion lines of spoken word. That's been an argument since Oblivion, and one that anyone who's played them will accept.

There wasn't as much humour, and that for me was fine. I'm one of those who thought Fallout 2 tilted towards being stupid a little too often.


Your opinion but...no. Just no.

Really? See, for me I distinctly remember walking around an apocalyptic wasteland that had a definite atomic age retro-future vibe. Did the other Fallouts not actually have the exact same motif? I'd go so far as to say the architecture and weapon design in numero 3 was probably better than the originals if we're getting down to it.


Yeah, if they actually manage to do this then it would be great but based on what we've seen so far I am far from convinced.

Your opinion but..no. Just no.


PS. Mechanics/gameplay do matter.

Of course they do. If they're handled badly then fine. But if you're holding on to how it was done ten years ago as a paragon of game design because you're not a fan of interpretation then welcome to the world of just about everything that has ever been redesigned.

Also, you guys made NMA so much fun. Please never change.

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 13:23
Not that again. "Oh don't discuss the game until you play it!" :rolleyes:

We know A LOT. Not everything, sure. Some gameplay aspects are still pretty much a mystery. But don't tell me we're not allowed to discuss and criticise. And nitpick. I am fully aware that the presentation ran on cheats. But the general direction is obvious.

I never said that. Just to avoid the echo chamber, which was the, I don't know, whole other bit of my post.


Same with VATS by the way, which is ridiculously overpowered. (I like Fallout 3 by the way, but it's much better with rebalancing and complexity/difficulty adding mods.)

VATS doesn't get overpowered unless you fill a certain number of requirements - high Agility, the right perks and a good sense of timing. You could easily run through the game and not focus on having a decent number of action points. Starting out VATS and an automatic weapon might get you one or two dead in a Raider group, if the gun is of decent condition. Hardly an auto-aim headshot button, and you still take damage while you're using it.

The argument is really that Bethesda's interpretation of SPECIAL is open to min-maxing. Really? You mean like every other RPG system ever invented?

maikaal
8th Jul 2010, 13:29
I hated hated Fallout 3, so the OPs example seems ridiculous to me. I don't care how many F3 copies were sold, it'll always be a piece of garbage to me, for many reasons. And I'm not even that big of a fan of F1 and F2.

WildcatPhoenix
8th Jul 2010, 13:30
Starting a pissing match over who is a bigger fan than the other is akin to the "my dad can beat up your dad" argument. So I'm not even going to go there.

But I'm getting extremely tired of people coming on to these boards, expecting to post "Thank you Eidos Montreal" threads, and then condescendingly mocking those of us who are very upset about certain elements of the game. We have just as much right to our opinion as you do, so don't start with the "echo chamber" argument. There are plenty of Deus Ex fans who are not at all happy about the direction this game has taken, and where else should we voice that opinion if not on a message forum? :hmm:

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 13:34
I hated hated Fallout 3, so the OPs example seems ridiculous to me. I don't care how many F3 copies were sold, it'll always be a piece of garbage to me, for many reasons. And I'm not even that big of a fan of F1 and F2.

Fair enough.

I'd say it's an apt comparison because you've got two communities that both have people who are dead against anything that isn't exactly what it was ten years ago, and will look at every tiny excruciating detail in order to make an argument.

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 13:38
But I'm getting extremely tired of people coming on to these boards, expecting to post "Thank you Eidos Montreal" threads, and then condescendingly mocking those of us who are very upset about certain elements of the game. We have just as much right to our opinion as you do, so don't start with the "echo chamber" argument. There are plenty of Deus Ex fans who are not at all happy about the direction this game has taken, and where else should we voice that opinion if not on a message forum? :hmm:

Judging by some of the replies, you all seem to think I'm telling you to stfu. Err, not really, but way to get defensive.

I'm just saying beware the echo chamber. Lots of people care about these games, is my point, and I for one am pretty cool with what they're doing here.

And I don't need to write a love-letter to Eidos to convince myself, just so we're completely clear on that.

WildcatPhoenix
8th Jul 2010, 13:43
Yeah, "echo chamber," got it.

You aren't the only one posting about this, reticulate. There's been a rash of new posters ever since E3 and the gameplay leak, expecting to come on here and see nothing but sunshine and rainbows about the game. When they find there are alot of us here who have been lurking around for years, and many of that group are royally pissed about EM's radio silence and inexplicable design choices, they have opted to post several "why is everyone always complaining???" threads.

Yours just happens to be better articulated than most, I'll give you that.

itsalladream
8th Jul 2010, 13:48
Ok guys, just come out and say it...you want them to remake the original DE. You've got a JC fetish that won't be scratched unless the new game is exactly like the original.

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 13:57
Ok guys, just come out and say it...you want them to remake the original DE. You've got a JC fetish that won't be scratched unless the new game is exactly like the original.

One of the reasons I stopped spending any time at NMA was because this was more or less it.

Yeah, they wanted an updated Fallout for the new millenium, or whatever. But it can't have that, or this, and those things ruin a great game until you're left with what you started with, which is the game you've been playing for a decade and are in less of a position to make an objective argument about than just about anyone else on the planet.

What I ranted about at the start there was a instinctive reaction to exactly the same thing. I think a nerve might have been touched somewhere. I'm also going to try not responding anymore because it looks a bit odd even though I actually like that people are this passionate about their entertainment.

beastrn
8th Jul 2010, 14:09
This thread sucks as much as Fallout 3 did.

Sales and GOTY's by shihead editors =/= a good game, ESPECIALLY if it's meant to be the next game in an oldschool PC dedicated series. And ESPECIALLY not if any sense of intelligence or complexity is removed just for those sales.

WildcatPhoenix
8th Jul 2010, 14:12
What I think some people are missing is that a lot of us "old-timers/hardliners/diehards/whatever" are not opposed to new characters, new story, new settings. I don't care if we don't see Tong, or Page, or Everett, or anyone from the original game. I don't expect Eidos to make Deus Ex with shinier graphics (leave that for the modders, hehehe!).

This is what I do expect:

1. I expect the world of 2027 to resemble a plausible future, with slightly more advanced technology.
2. I expect the core gameplay, which Eidos Montreal claims to worship, to be intact. Last time I checked, Deus was a first person RPG hybrid. It had a skill system and an aug system, an inventory. Sure, things can be streamlined. But removing them entirely, or switching to third person for what looks like 50% of the game, then telling us "oh third person is only contextual and isn't a big part of the game" reeks of disingenous, market-speak BS to me.
3. I expect to have melee weapons as an option.
4. I expect the OVERALL story to tie into the original canon. I want to see what led to the formation of the NSF and UNATCO. I want to see people who might be tied to the Illuminati. I want MJ12 to make some kind of appearance. This is a prequel, yes, but it will take on much more meaning if it connects the threads to the original game.
5. I expect Eidos Montreal to deliver when they say things like "expect something big at E3."

Ashpolt
8th Jul 2010, 14:17
You're missing a huge point, OP:

Fallout 3 was a terrible sequel, and the people on NMA had every right to complain as they did.

Hold up, hold up. I should point out, first of all, that I actually enjoyed Fallout 3. It's not perfect by any stretch, but as a piece of entertainment, it does its job fairly well. However, there is a huge gulf between "good game" and "good sequel," and it's entirely possible to be in one camp without being in the other, as Fallout 3 did. Sure, the game Bethesda released was enjoyable, and on a technical level was a good game - which is why it sold millions - but it was not a Fallout game, because it didn't play like a Fallout game.

This argument that all a game has to do to count itself as a sequel is establish plot continuity and have a similar atmosphere is at best misguided and at worst shows a deep misunderstanding and complete lack of respect for the strengths of gaming as a medium. The way you interact with games is by playing them: story and atmosphere help a lot in crafting a good gameplay experience, and are important, but gameplay is what makes a game a game, if you'll pardon the phrase. You can't have a game without gameplay, but you can have a game without a story. In movies, the primary concern when making a sequel must be to capture the atmosphere of its predecessors, but that's because movies don't have any equivalent of gameplay: they're a non interactive medium. Again, gameplay is what defines gaming as its own medium, and what stops it from being cinema: as such, gameplay is always the primary concern.

Again, I'm not saying that story continuity and atmosphere aren't important - for some games, including Deus Ex, they are - but they're certainly not everything. By this "logic," change a few character names in Company of Heroes and you've got a worthy sequel for Call of Duty: Battlefield Vietnam is a worthy sequel to Operation Flashpoint: FEAR is a sequel to Fatal Frame: God of War and Titan Quest could be in the same series: and so on and so on.

The funny thing is, even discarding gameplay and only taking your definition of what makes a good sequel, they've still strayed far from the source: the tech is undoubtedly more futuristic than what was in DX1 (yes, it may be more realistic to today's standards, but this is set in the Deus Ex universe, not strictly the real world: I wouldn't make a prequel to Bioshock and set it on land because "an underwater city would have been infeasible in the 1940s) and EM have confirmed in interviews that we won't be seeing many of Deus Ex's characters: apparently the nod to Tong is about as strong as we'll get. So what are we left with? A cyberpunk atmosphere and the fact that UNATCO will be formed to some degree. I admit there will most likely be more in the finished product, but that's just a guess: based on what we know, this has little plot continuity with DX, and the atmosphere, while still cyberpunk, is a significantly different branch of cyberpunk.

Finally, you call people's complaints nit-picky: they've changed the viewpoint of the game (yes, some is still FP, but the game as a whole is now FP/TP,) removed a large chunk of the resource management aspect, removed an entire pillar of the stealth gameplay (shadow stealth,) removed player-controlled melee combat, removed lockpicking and multitools, and a whole host of other changes besides. Sure, a lot of them could be considered nit-picky on their own (though the viewpoint shift, health system over-simplification and stealth system simplification are not) but add them all together and you've got a big change. Virtually no aspect of the gameplay has not been affected, and nearly all of the changes are a simplification of what was there before, or a move made to increase "cool" or make something more cinematic at the expense of grounding and immersion.

Will DXHR be a good game on its own right? Perhaps. Will it sell millions? Given the marketing budget EM are throwing at it, almost certainly. Does that invalidate the criticisms that people have levelled at it? Absolutely not.

Fluffis
8th Jul 2010, 14:17
One of the reasons I stopped spending any time at NMA was because this was more or less it.

Yeah, they wanted an updated Fallout for the new millenium, or whatever. But it can't have that, or this, and those things ruin a great game until you're left with what you started with, which is the game you've been playing for a decade and are in less of a position to make an objective argument about than just about anyone else on the planet.

What I ranted about at the start there was a instinctive reaction to exactly the same thing. I think a nerve might have been touched somewhere. I'm also going to try not responding anymore because it looks a bit odd even though I actually like that people are this passionate about their entertainment.

... and there we go. We should all just be happy, no matter what happens. Thank you for proving my point.

Just to clear something up: I don't think I'm more of a DX fan than you. I'm, however, more concerned than you. I actually don't think that the main concern for EM is to please the fans. It's to make money. I'm completely sure that they would do ANYTHING to reach that goal - including turning DX:HR into something that is Deus Ex in name only. This is why I practice critical thinking.

FrankCSIS
8th Jul 2010, 14:27
Coming up with Fallout 3 as an example is really not the best idea in the world. Strictly from a narrative progression point of view, it was a broken game. It was also plagued by many mechanics which, regardless of the original games, simply did not work. The pacing was terrible, the distances were terrible, and the entire idea of building up your character and making choices was rendered nil and pointless by the fact that you could accomplish absolutely anything just as easily and simply regardless of the choices you had made.

It had some good things, but the GOTY was achieved thanks to its splendid world, and the Fallout name attached to it. Strictly as a game, it wasn't worthy of it. As a sequel, it bore absolutely nothing of the original, save the name and the setting. If anything, it should have been called Wasteland Reboot and be done with it.

TrickyVein
8th Jul 2010, 16:06
In movies, the primary concern when making a sequel must be to capture the atmosphere of its predecessors, but that's because movies don't have any equivalent of gameplay: they're a non interactive medium. Again, gameplay is what defines gaming as its own medium, and what stops it from being cinema: as such, gameplay is always the primary concern.

Ashpolt knows what he's talking about, and I agree with him - listen up people!

(Paraphrasing the dev's here): "There will be a lot of cutscenes - the game needs them." This is a very revealing statement about the kind of game DX3 is going to be in my mind.

Aside: For the record, I do enjoy the gameplay of FO3 more than that of its predecessors. Perhaps this is because it was the first Fallout title I played (not true, I had the demo of FO1 waaaay back, but doesn't really count). Having to wait 1:13 for all your enemies to maneuver in turn (I timed it) just so that you can fire once (and that's with supposedly "very good" agility) and actually MISS with a 95% chance to hit is a sure way to get me to stop playing. I realize the game is more "tactical" in this sense then FO3, but it's certainly not as fun as real time combat. The turn based gameplay of fallout you could argue is what defines that title - so FO3 has different gamplay, and therefore should be considered a different game. Sure, whatever, I still think it's more fun to play then the first two (which I have sought out and played a good while through). Note, I'm just talking about the gameplay, not anything else here.

PenguinsFriend
8th Jul 2010, 16:20
Coming up with Fallout 3 as an example is really not the best idea in the world. Strictly from a narrative progression point of view, it was a broken game. It was also plagued by many mechanics which, regardless of the original games, simply did not work. The pacing was terrible, the distances were terrible, and the entire idea of building up your character and making choices was rendered nil and pointless by the fact that you could accomplish absolutely anything just as easily and simply regardless of the choices you had made.

It had some good things, but the GOTY was achieved thanks to its splendid world, and the Fallout name attached to it. Strictly as a game, it wasn't worthy of it. As a sequel, it bore absolutely nothing of the original, save the name and the setting. If anything, it should have been called Wasteland Reboot and be done with it.

Getting to bump my skills to 100 in every area blows big baby chunks - it made the game ultra easy with no to little risk of failure. I do maximum damage with all weapons and have a 95% chance of winning any speech quest - and the only reason I didn't put it to 100% speech was because it would just bug me.

I also have a bajillion caps - what am I supposed to do with all these damn caps? Weapons drop like rain so I can grab 'em and sell em. The game has some nice elements but is otherwise not good.

itsalladream
8th Jul 2010, 20:32
Do you mean it rains weapons, that each guy you kill drops a weapon, or they are just scattered everywhere? It's been a while since I've played.

Fluffis
8th Jul 2010, 21:27
Do you mean it rains weapons, that each guy you kill drops a weapon, or they are just scattered everywhere? It's been a while since I've played.

A little bit of both.

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 21:36
Ok, a couple of things here to clarify.

Fallout 3 was always contentious, which is exactly why I mentioned it as an example. It's one of those cult games that inspires a certain degree of fandom, and that's awesome. I love that people actually care about what is at the end of the day a bunch of pixels rendered on a screen.

It was by more or less any reasonable metric a good game. In a lot of aspects I had more fun actually playing it than the first two, largely because the turned-based mechanic was thrown in place of a real-time-with-pause deal. A lot of people didn't like it, but a lot of people did. To discount the fun that the second group had as irrelevant would be a bit arrogant, in my opinion. I'm admitting the writing wasn't mindblowing and that by Broken Steel you could essentially create an uber-character of epic talent, but a lot of people seem to think the game was actually a good experience to this point.

Anyway, what I'm driving at is that what if Human Revolution is actually a pretty good game? What if you're sitting there in front of your monitor, making judgements on the things we've seen and already deciding that it's all over as far as a 'true' member of the family and it actually turns out to be good?

As far as DE goes, I guess I could point to the frankly broken stealth (and it is, you're not hiding in shadows as much as you're playing guessing games with the AI), infuriating shooting mechanics, half-useless skill tree and a story that promises freedom but in actual fact is essentially a railroad right up until the end of Area 51 - with the only big changes being the choice of when you kill people off. If you've played the games extensively you know these things aren't what they could be. But we love the game regardless, and again this is awesome because it deserves this sort of passion.

What gets me is that it seems a lot of people walk into these things with a preconditioned response. It's not even really about the game anymore, but what you think it should be dosed up with some serious nostalgia-tinted glasses. When all you're really judging anything by is how much better you had it when you were into it before the cool kids, all you really do is rob yourself of a good experience.

Anyway. Opinions will always be just that. People have brought up good points, and I agree with some of them. But for myself I'm not walking into this immediately cynical of absolutely everything, taking every quote or bit of gameplay video out of context and drilling the hell out of it to fit a preconceived notion.

I think I'll go back to lurking :)

Irate_Iguana
8th Jul 2010, 21:42
Well this all seems very familiar.

reticulate
8th Jul 2010, 21:46
Well this all seems very familiar.

Touche sir.

WildcatPhoenix
8th Jul 2010, 21:58
...and a story that promises freedom but in actual fact is essentially a railroad right up until the end of Area 51 - with the only big changes being the choice of when you kill people off.

You lost me right here.

Ashpolt
8th Jul 2010, 22:19
Anyway, what I'm driving at is that what if Human Revolution is actually a pretty good game? What if you're sitting there in front of your monitor, making judgements on the things we've seen and already deciding that it's all over as far as a 'true' member of the family and it actually turns out to be good?

If it's a good game, but a poor sequel, I will continue to be pissed off because the reason I am interested in this game at all is as a Deus Ex sequel.

If it's a good game and a good sequel, I will happily eat my words. And my hat.


As far as DE goes, I guess I could point to the frankly broken stealth (and it is, you're not hiding in shadows as much as you're playing guessing games with the AI), infuriating shooting mechanics, half-useless skill tree and a story that promises freedom but in actual fact is essentially a railroad right up until the end of Area 51 - with the only big changes being the choice of when you kill people off. If you've played the games extensively you know these things aren't what they could be.

You, as with so many people, make the mistake of thinking that complaining about certain factors in DXHR must mean we think the original Deus Ex is perfect. Not so. I accept that there were problems with Deus Ex - the dodgy AI being the most obvious - and where EM have taken steps to fix that, I applaud them. The changes people complain about though - primarily health regen and 3rd person stuff - aren't, despite any amount of EM marketing speak, actually fixing problems that the original game had, or expanding on the experience in a significant way without distracting in another more significant way.

pringlepower
8th Jul 2010, 22:53
If it's a good game, but a poor sequel, I will continue to be pissed off because the reason I am interested in this game at all is as a Deus Ex sequel.

If it's a good game and a good sequel, I will happily eat my words. And my hat.



You, as with so many people, make the mistake of thinking that complaining about certain factors in DXHR must mean we think the original Deus Ex is perfect. Not so. I accept that there were problems with Deus Ex - the dodgy AI being the most obvious - and where EM have taken steps to fix that, I applaud them. The changes people complain about though - primarily health regen and 3rd person stuff - aren't, despite any amount of EM marketing speak, actually fixing problems that the original game had, or expanding on the experience in a significant way without distracting in another more significant way.

Eh for all we know it could be annoyingly slow health regen. This idea coming after finishing Jade Empire and realizing how annoying slow Dawn Star regens chi.

Ashpolt
8th Jul 2010, 23:01
Slow or fast, doesn't solve the problems I have with health regen. Check my first post in the "constructive feedback" thread for a bit more detail, to save me typing it out again here (and no doubt starting the same debate again.)

Ulysses
8th Jul 2010, 23:13
Heh, gotta love cross-site trolling. :)

hem dazon 90
8th Jul 2010, 23:35
Heh, gotta love cross-site trolling. :)


maybe the community here will be more brotherly if we embark on an /i/nvasion

jtr7
8th Jul 2010, 23:37
reticulate:

Yes. It's the internet. This is how it goes. And you've played your part to a tee. Nothing new here. It should seem even more common than just a hearkening back to the infamous Fallout 3 wars. Now I've played my part. Only strict moderation, or small obscure forums are free from the full spectrum of 'Net users/abusers, 'tards and ├╝ber-nerds/geeks/dweebs.

chechof
9th Jul 2010, 00:41
Well, you can call me a "Hardcore Gamer" because i had spent like so many hours playing games that i know like every game made... but i didnt really played Fallout 1 or Fallout 2, just didnt, and i can say Fallout 3 was cool, not THAT cool in fact i think it was a little ridiculous, the animations were RIDICULOUS for me and have to agree with the issue of the lines there, but still the music caught me and the atmosphere was inmersive enough to made me try it and ended up playing it until the end.

The thing is that Deus ex 1 was pretty cool i liked it and i dont think they are ruining it so bad still there are points i dont like... the points i dont like or the point i dont really like or more than that i would change is the third person, the third person takedowns would be cool, cool animation, movie-like-scenes and things like that but still i will get bored if i for example can kill like all the enemys with LETHAL TAKEDOWNS that would suck... still i prefer first person because is more inmersive and cool (yes it is cooler for me than TP takedowns because is like you dont really understand always what are you doing with your hands but still looks so efficient that u just end up digging it) And even if the takedowns are TP or FP i prefer them to be FP for the reason i gave you on the parenthesis, but we have to understand that TP is made to show you how cool your guy is, and i can see you guys just DONT WANT THAT dont want cool moves or movie like ****s and COOL-BADASS-MOTHER****ER, NO, you guys want a cool gameplay; a game you can enjoy, feel in your veins your blood, and 10 years after the game is launched you want to hear its soundtrack and remember those good times playing it and to be a freakin ' classic, i think thats a hard task for devs (They can still make it if they want to) But the fact that they want newcomers on the game that wont like a game that is not catchy (Because all in all the first game wasnt that catchy at all when you started playing it you can say im wrong in this but is my opinion) Like Call of duty 4 where the soundtrack is like a hollywood movie and the games are not that deep is obvious and wont let that last idea to "grow".

So my point here is that i respect that point of view you guys have (I mean old deus ex players) Because i feel a little like you even if i dont agree with the opinion that they are runing it to the level it will become a no buy for me but i think the ideas of a health-regen system and TP in more or less 50% of the game like just changing into tp like 5 times in a minute just suck, not only that but many things i mean i would just hate the fact that they are making a new game with the name "Deus ex" in it but is just another totally different game that is a "prequel" but still wont have like anything linked with the first deus ex but the atmosphere or the GENRE that would just be like "forgeting the first game" and the third would die for me completely, because i want both games to be connected in a way we can note it easily so the player can find out what happened between 2027 and the years 2050.

Then what i think basically is that i liked what Deus ex was, a cool experience pretty inmersive-atmospheric game but still dont think they are really killing it in the number 3 coming out in 2011, yet still they are giving us theyr ideas that we just dont like too much because they are aiming to what we think will be a disaster and is totally valid to argue and give your opinions about what you dont like because is true that a normal human that played Deus ex, liked it, then knows there will be another one that is going to be next-gen and discover that the ideas the devs are having are just countering what Deus ex 1 was, because the main goal here is to recreate deus ex 1 in a new story new gameplay and basically a next-gen game or at last that is what i understood in what they put on the F.A.Q or even the interviews, are s h i t in few words.

PD: Srry for my bad redaction, im from Chile, is hard for me to express in this lenguage :mad2: :o.

Senka
9th Jul 2010, 01:16
First off, Sales =/= a good game. Second, I never played the original Fallouts, and personally Fallout 3 sucks. Especially the ending, that was a joke. And a damn bad joke too.

Romeo
9th Jul 2010, 01:24
Please continue this discussion in off-topic.