PDA

View Full Version : PC version identical to console versions



Kodaemon
14th Jul 2010, 12:35
Uh-oh. (http://www.qj.net/qjnet/news/eidos-montreal-all-three-versions-of-deus-ex-human-revolution-will-deliver-the-same-experience.html)

Tverdyj
14th Jul 2010, 12:38
they'd damn well better make it playable without a gamepad on PC

PizzaNo1
14th Jul 2010, 12:52
they'd damn well better make it playable without a gamepad on PC

I agree, most of pc owners dont want to use some :-@ gamepad.

Kodaemon
14th Jul 2010, 13:01
Oh come on, of course you will be able to use a keyboard+mouse combo on PC, but gameplay will undoubtedly feel gimped.

Also, I expect HUGE FONTS YOU CAN SEE FROM YOUR COUCH.

AaronJ
14th Jul 2010, 13:05
Ouch. Good call, 50-people-who-said-this-back-in-the-day.

Ashpolt
14th Jul 2010, 13:13
I'm not so worried about the HUGE FONTS, I'm more worried about the menu systems being designed for control pad and hence being incredibly unintuitive on PC, a la Borderlands and Alpha Protocol (actually really enjoying Alpha Protocol overall, but why do I have to click - for instance - the "Barrel" slot on the weapon customisation menu, then click submit? Why can't I just double click the barrel slot? And why do I have to exit all the way out to the PDA's front-end menu before I can exit the PDA? If I press M to view the map / objectives screen, I should be able to press M again to close it, rather than having to click "back" to go back to the PDA front end and then pressing TAB to close that. Anyway, brief rant over.)

This isn't a surprise at all - as AaronJ said, most of us called this over a year ago - but it's still another in an increasingly long line of disappointments.

Kodaemon
14th Jul 2010, 13:27
Well, it did disappoint me, as the early info suggested the PC version was the lead one.

AaronJ
14th Jul 2010, 13:41
Would anyone like to represent the line of disappointment using ASCII code?

xsamitt
14th Jul 2010, 13:43
I would hope it also doesn't mean that the PC version will look no better than the consoles.
I remember the first time I was about to play IW,I had such a bad feeling before it started because of the low resolution of the flash screens.God I truly hope another IW isn't about to be pulled on us.

Irate_Iguana
14th Jul 2010, 13:48
Well, it did disappoint me, as the early info suggested the PC version was the lead one.

They always say this with old PC franchises. It is the easiest marketing trick in the book. That way you don't immediatly scare off the old PC gamers. When they have confirmed that the PC is no longer the lead platform the next marketing trick is to say that there is a team working exclusively on the PC version in order to ensure that it is good. What they mean is that two guys will take a look at the UI after the game is completed and just switch the names of the buttons used and add mouse support. Also the HD space required will be jacked up with 9 extra gigs.

It really shouldn't have come as a surprise. All the earliest previews were on the Xbox. The demo was on the Xbox. Dugas and co generally refer to console controller buttons when talking about the game. Several devs have stated that the console is their favorite platform in various interviews.

My biggest concerns when a PC game is ported is that the menu navigation is generally piss-poor. Controls for character movement are poor. Hotkey set-up is limited to what can fit on a controller. And in the worst cases level design is poor.

Kodaemon
14th Jul 2010, 13:54
I would hope it also doesn't mean that the PC version will look no better than the consoles.
I remember the first time I was about to play IW,I had such a bad feeling before it started because of the low resolution of the flash screens.God I truly hope another IW isn't about to be pulled on us.

Graphics are the least of my concerns, really. It's the gameplay and interface I'm scared about.

xsamitt
14th Jul 2010, 13:59
Graphics are the least of my concerns, really. It's the gameplay and interface I'm scared about.

Agree with you there.IW was terrible for that too.

InGroove2
14th Jul 2010, 14:04
this is an extremely useless panic thread about a blurb that has no actual information on it. we knew they had this approach all along. they profess to be working on the three platforms in paralell... so what? how does that mean anything worth an "uh-oh" thread?

DaedalusIcarusHelios
14th Jul 2010, 14:05
The worst parts about DX:IW were the technical limitations of the original Xbox imposed on the PC version. Crappy low resolution textures, and frustratingly small level sizes (remember the bar in Germany?). I don't remember if I'm missing anything else that was a direct consequence of making the game for Xbox primarily (discounting the changes that were aimed at that target audience), but the possible good news is that if they are making it for all three simultaneously, then maybe the uniqueness of the PC will still be utilized. It would be great if they had higher resolution textures as an option for the PC for high settings. I think with IW they didn't save the higher res original textures and so had to use the Xbox textures for PC. As long as they are managing their assets, they have no excuse to not offer the option of more detailed graphics. What we've seen so far looks great though, so I'm not too worried there. As long as they don't start "optimizing" it to run better on the consoles which also limits the PC's potential.

Edit: I forgot about the atrocious level loading times. They didn't optimize for the PC's greater capacity for memory.

PenguinsFriend
14th Jul 2010, 14:07
this is an extremely useless panic thread about a blurb that has no actual information on it. we knew they had this approach all along. they profess to be working on the three platforms in paralell... so what? how does that mean anything worth an "uh-oh" thread?

Maybe... but we'll all get the same experience? I'm not too sure how I feel about that statement or what exactly it is supposed to mean... :scratch: :hmm:

InGroove2
14th Jul 2010, 14:10
Maybe... but we'll all get the same experience? I'm not too sure how I feel about that statement or what exactly it is supposed to mean... :scratch: :hmm:

maybe it's just me, but it seems blatantly obvious that its a meaningless statement meant to put a warm blanket on any idea that the console people will be frustrated because the PC to console port will suck... and to the PC people that the console to PC port will suck. i.e. they're not porting anything in the traditional 'port after the fact' way. i can't see any reason to think it would mean anythingother than that.

PenguinsFriend
14th Jul 2010, 14:14
maybe it's just me, but it seems blatantly obvious that its a meaningless statement meant to put a warm blanket on any idea that the console people will be frustrated because the PC to console port will suck... and to the PC people that the console to PC port will suck. i.e. they're not porting anything in the traditional 'port after the fact' way. i can't see any reason to think it would mean anythingother than that.

I like your hope laden post better than the slight knot of worry that had been building in my gut - so I'm gonna climb on your bandwagon... move over and make some room, please. :)

WildcatPhoenix
14th Jul 2010, 14:15
I see this as yet another contradiction to what we were told (I won't use the word promised) in the beginning.

Consider these claims:

"You'll be getting a dedicated developer's blog, and we'll be interacting with the community routinely to get your input."

Nope.

"Third-person camera is contextual, and players won't be forced to use it."

Only if you decide not to: a) climb ladders b) use melee c) come within 10 feet of a wall.

"PC is the only confirmed platform for release."

Which became...

"DX:HR is being released cross-platform, but PC is the focus."

Which became...

"The experience will be the same on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC. The same mechanics – everything is the same."


At this point I don't believe a word these guys say anymore.

Irate_Iguana
14th Jul 2010, 14:17
i can't see any reason to think it would mean anythingother than that.

Because no game where they mentioned "simultaneous development" of different platforms turned out to be anything less than a port from another platform?

PenguinsFriend
14th Jul 2010, 14:21
I see this as yet another contradiction to what we were told (I won't use the word promised) in the beginning.

Consider these claims:

"You'll be getting a dedicated developer's blog, and we'll be interacting with the community routinely to get your input."

Nope.

"Third-person camera is contextual, and players won't be forced to use it."

Only if you decide not to: a) climb ladders b) use melee c) come within 10 feet of a wall.

"PC is the only confirmed platform for release."

Which became...

"DX:HR is being released cross-platform, but PC is the focus."

Which became...

"The experience will be the same on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC. The same mechanics – everything is the same."


At this point I don't believe a word these guys say anymore.


FYI - You have to push a button when next to a wall to enter into 3rd person view...

InGroove2
14th Jul 2010, 14:30
I see this as yet another contradiction to what we were told (I won't use the word promised) in the beginning.

Consider these claims:

"You'll be getting a dedicated developer's blog, and we'll be interacting with the community routinely to get your input."

Nope.

"Third-person camera is contextual, and players won't be forced to use it."

Only if you decide not to: a) climb ladders b) use melee c) come within 10 feet of a wall.

"PC is the only confirmed platform for release."

Which became...

"DX:HR is being released cross-platform, but PC is the focus."

Which became...

"The experience will be the same on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC. The same mechanics – everything is the same."


At this point I don't believe a word these guys say anymore.


but your lineage there... is a fallacy. the last line doesn't refute the line baout PC being the focus. it just says that they're not gonna make the game for PC and THEN port it late in the game. none of that means the PC isn't the focus. in fact the last line of that blurb

""I used to work on previous games where we had lead platforms, and when we were close to the release date, we had to do a port," he added. "And believe me, you don’t want to do that.""

tells me that his comment about the EXPERIENCE being the same is directly a result of this... that normally ports are made after the game and therefore rushed and suck-ridden. a lead platform is different from the idea of focus.. i mean, dont know a ton about developing a game... but it seems to me it would be impossible to simultaneously FOCUS on all platforms to develop a game since they have clear differences in their structure...

Kodaemon
14th Jul 2010, 14:38
Oh but it does mean the PC is not the focus!

It simply can't be. They have to make the game with the lowest common denominator in mind at all times, meaning whichever of the consoles is the weakest in a particular field. They can't make interfaces more complex than gamepads allow, they can't create textures the consoles' limited RAM couldn't take etc.

TrickyVein
14th Jul 2010, 14:41
^^the end result being consistent mediocrity - for everyone!

But that's only if you have a doom/gloom attitude. Here's a bit of a positive spin on things: at least we're not going to get a crappy port to the PC from a console the way things are going. Right?

WildcatPhoenix
14th Jul 2010, 14:53
Oh but it does mean the PC is not the focus!

It simply can't be. They have to make the game with the lowest common denominator in mind at all times, meaning whichever of the consoles is the weakest in a particular field. They can't make interfaces more complex than gamepads allow, they can't create textures the consoles' limited RAM couldn't take etc.

Precisely. It doesn't mean the 360 or the PS3 are the focus either, it means there is no focus. You can't put a gameplay mechanic into the game if it won't work on all three platforms, which results in a watered-down, no-risk, homogenized end product.

Just another step in the wrong direction.

Unstoppable
14th Jul 2010, 15:12
This is dissapointing we were lied to. Now what we're going to get is the entire game will be limited due to console hardware structure. Level size, textures, design decisions etc. The most we would is higher textures but that wasn't even implemented in Invisible War.

Some people actually created better textures than the developers of Invisible War for the PC. Eidos Montreal I hope you don't screw up. Everyone is watching.

Badmaker
14th Jul 2010, 15:47
so, Deus Ex 3....the most anticipated game for PC since 2004 will be.... a dumbed down port from consoles to PC ?


If this is true Deus Ex 3 will be Invisible war 2.

Romeo
14th Jul 2010, 17:57
I'm still staying on the hope bandwagon, not just for PC, but for consoles too. I didn't see anything concrete, so I'm not about to go raving mad over something which may be true. I may die tomorrow, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out today and blow every penny and skip work. lol

Remington
14th Jul 2010, 18:19
would anyone like to represent the line of disappointment using ascii code?

Here you go :)



ooooooooo hhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh nnnnnnnn nnnnnnnn ooooooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sssssssssssssss
oo:::::::::oo h:::::::h h:::::::h n:::::::n n::::::n oo:::::::::oo e::::::::::::::::::::e ss:::::::::::::::s
oo:::::::::::::oo h:::::::h h:::::::h n::::::::n n::::::n oo:::::::::::::oo e::::::::::::::::::::es:::::ssssss::::::s
o:::::::ooo:::::::ohh::::::h h::::::hh n:::::::::n n::::::no:::::::ooo:::::::oee::::::eeeeeeeee::::es:::::s sssssss
o::::::o o::::::o h:::::h h:::::h n::::::::::n n::::::no::::::o o::::::o e:::::e eeeeees:::::s
o:::::o o:::::o h:::::h h:::::h n:::::::::::n n::::::no:::::o o:::::o e:::::e s:::::s
o:::::o o:::::o h::::::hhhhh::::::h n:::::::n::::n n::::::no:::::o o:::::o e::::::eeeeeeeeee s::::ssss
o:::::o o:::::o h:::::::::::::::::h n::::::n n::::n n::::::no:::::o o:::::o e:::::::::::::::e ss::::::sssss
o:::::o o:::::o h:::::::::::::::::h n::::::n n::::n:::::::no:::::o o:::::o e:::::::::::::::e sss::::::::ss
o:::::o o:::::o h::::::hhhhh::::::h n::::::n n:::::::::::no:::::o o:::::o e::::::eeeeeeeeee ssssss::::s
o:::::o o:::::o h:::::h h:::::h n::::::n n::::::::::no:::::o o:::::o e:::::e s:::::s
o::::::o o::::::o h:::::h h:::::h n::::::n n:::::::::no::::::o o::::::o e:::::e eeeeee s:::::s
o:::::::ooo:::::::ohh::::::h h::::::hh n::::::n n::::::::no:::::::ooo:::::::oee::::::eeeeeeee:::::esssssss s:::::s
oo:::::::::::::oo h:::::::h h:::::::h n::::::n n:::::::n oo:::::::::::::oo e::::::::::::::::::::es::::::ssssss:::::s
oo:::::::::oo h:::::::h h:::::::h n::::::n n::::::n oo:::::::::oo e::::::::::::::::::::es:::::::::::::::ss
ooooooooo hhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh nnnnnnnn nnnnnnn ooooooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sssssssssssssss

Ilves
14th Jul 2010, 18:39
I'm having a hard time imagining a development process where there isn't a lead platform. On what bare bones system does one get a piece of software running in the first place?


The demo was on the Xbox.

I was *almost* certain the E3 demo ran on a PS3. It surprised me at the time, as popular lore had me believe the 360 is more often than not the preferred dev platform, since it's easily ported to PC from there, and the PS3 version almost always suffers as a consequence.

My guess is Anfossi was trying to cancel out any expectations of the PC version being more intricate gameplay wise. But nobody here was seriously expecting there to be essential differences between the different versions anyway, right? :scratch:

Shralla
14th Jul 2010, 18:55
So you guys DO realize that nothing about "The experience will be the same across all platforms" in any way suggests that the PC WASN'T the lead platform? In fact, if anything, it suggests that they were blanket developing at the same time. I should ******* hope it would be the same game across all platforms, otherwise what's the point?

I seriously can't believe how much you guys are crying over this. OH NO IT'S GOING TO TOTALLY CHANGE THE GAME FROM WHAT IT WAS BEING PRESENTED AS A MONTH AGO.

No, no it won't. Quit being a *****.

PenguinsFriend
14th Jul 2010, 19:05
So you guys DO realize that nothing about "The experience will be the same across all platforms" in any way suggests that the PC WASN'T the lead platform? In fact, if anything, it suggests that they were blanket developing at the same time. I should ******* hope it would be the same game across all platforms, otherwise what's the point?

I seriously can't believe how much you guys are crying over this. OH NO IT'S GOING TO TOTALLY CHANGE THE GAME FROM WHAT IT WAS BEING PRESENTED AS A MONTH AGO.

No, no it won't. Quit being a *****.

Listen here, Pookie, what I think we are saying is that "the same game across all platforms" means that the PC experience may suffer. It's already been pointed out that they can't use top end resolution on a clone and use it the same way on a low end processor, like xbox 360 and PS3.

If that's the case for the graphics, it may be he case of the controls, screen width, etc

Anyway - you are right about one thing, we are panicking a little bit prematurely - I'd rather wait until you have bought and beta tested the game for us before making any final decisions. ;)

edited

Pretentious Old Man.
14th Jul 2010, 19:13
So you guys DO realize that nothing about "The experience will be the same across all platforms" in any way suggests that the PC WASN'T the lead platform? In fact, if anything, it suggests that they were blanket developing at the same time. I should ******* hope it would be the same game across all platforms, otherwise what's the point?

I seriously can't believe how much you guys are crying over this. OH NO IT'S GOING TO TOTALLY CHANGE THE GAME FROM WHAT IT WAS BEING PRESENTED AS A MONTH AGO.

No, no it won't. Quit being a *****.

Have you played Mass Effect (especially the second)? That's a good example of a console game having its interface and renderer cleaned up for PC use.

WildcatPhoenix
14th Jul 2010, 19:15
Ahh, the king of the apologists finally chimes in. Took you long enough, Shralla.

I think we have every right to be concerned that the game is being developed for a platform that is incapable of handling large open levels or max-res textures. Consoles have made tons of progress since the days of Atari or NES, but they aren't up to speed with PCs. We have said it before, we will say it again, this game is being developed for the lowest bar instead of the highest.

Why can't they go the route of Deus Ex: The Conspiracy? The developers took a game designed exclusively for PC, made the necessary adjustments to account for the PS2's limitations, and still managed to deliver a very very close approximation to the original experience. I just played through the PS2 version for the first time (and I'm obviously a "PC purist") and I was extremely impressed with the job they did.

SageSavage
14th Jul 2010, 19:22
This announcement revives some of the old sentiments. If the PC-version won't be optimized for the PC (mouse/keyboard, menu structures, AA, etc), I predict a serious outrage from many DX-veterans.

Shralla
14th Jul 2010, 19:25
I'm not an "apologist." I'm just not an irrational tool who thinks the whole goddamn world is falling apart just because somebody had the gall to say that the game is going to be the same on all the consoles. SO IS EVERY GAME EVER. Bad Company 2 is identical on PC to the game on consoles, and the PC crowd is still devouring it, saying it's a worthy follow-up to Battlefield 2.

We all saw the goddamn gameplay leak, we SAW how big the levels were, we were TOLD by people there what the graphics look like, AND NONE OF THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT SOMEBODY SAID ABOUT THE DESIGN PLATFORM.

And the consoles can't handle large, open levels. Silly me. I must have been imagining the box I saw for Fallout 3 on Xbox. Or you know, the fact that the ORIGINAL Xbox can handle Morrowind. Oh, and also aforementioned Bad Company 2. I forgot how tiny and miniscule those levels are, especially with only allowing 12-players per map and everything. AND IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S ALSO RENDERING BUILDING DESTRUCTION AT THE SAME TIME OR ANYTHING.

Christ, just because I don't get my ******* panties in a bunch over something COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT apparently means that I'm an "apologist." No, I just have a brain that I like using every now and then, and I don't want to jump on the "**** sux" bandwagon just because somebody said something THAT DOESN'T IN ANY WAY CHANGE ANY INFORMATION WE HAVE ABOUT THE GAME ITSELF.

WildcatPhoenix
14th Jul 2010, 19:29
Forget it, I started to respond to this ALL CAPS IN YO FACE post, but flame wars are simply boring at this stage.

You think consoles can deliver the same functionality as high-end PCs? Fine. Live in your delusional world. I have nothing more to say on that subject.

What I do have to say is that the deceptive public relations work from EM is what is behind the bulk of the consternation on this board. EM tells us one thing, then delivers another. After a while you get sick of being burned.

AaronJ
14th Jul 2010, 19:33
Here you go :)



ooooooooo hhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh nnnnnnnn nnnnnnnn ooooooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sssssssssssssss
oo:::::::::oo h:::::::h h:::::::h n:::::::n n::::::n oo:::::::::oo e::::::::::::::::::::e ss:::::::::::::::s
oo:::::::::::::oo h:::::::h h:::::::h n::::::::n n::::::n oo:::::::::::::oo e::::::::::::::::::::es:::::ssssss::::::s
o:::::::ooo:::::::ohh::::::h h::::::hh n:::::::::n n::::::no:::::::ooo:::::::oee::::::eeeeeeeee::::es:::::s sssssss
o::::::o o::::::o h:::::h h:::::h n::::::::::n n::::::no::::::o o::::::o e:::::e eeeeees:::::s
o:::::o o:::::o h:::::h h:::::h n:::::::::::n n::::::no:::::o o:::::o e:::::e s:::::s
o:::::o o:::::o h::::::hhhhh::::::h n:::::::n::::n n::::::no:::::o o:::::o e::::::eeeeeeeeee s::::ssss
o:::::o o:::::o h:::::::::::::::::h n::::::n n::::n n::::::no:::::o o:::::o e:::::::::::::::e ss::::::sssss
o:::::o o:::::o h:::::::::::::::::h n::::::n n::::n:::::::no:::::o o:::::o e:::::::::::::::e sss::::::::ss
o:::::o o:::::o h::::::hhhhh::::::h n::::::n n:::::::::::no:::::o o:::::o e::::::eeeeeeeeee ssssss::::s
o:::::o o:::::o h:::::h h:::::h n::::::n n::::::::::no:::::o o:::::o e:::::e s:::::s
o::::::o o::::::o h:::::h h:::::h n::::::n n:::::::::no::::::o o::::::o e:::::e eeeeee s:::::s
o:::::::ooo:::::::ohh::::::h h::::::hh n::::::n n::::::::no:::::::ooo:::::::oee::::::eeeeeeee:::::esssssss s:::::s
oo:::::::::::::oo h:::::::h h:::::::h n::::::n n:::::::n oo:::::::::::::oo e::::::::::::::::::::es::::::ssssss:::::s
oo:::::::::oo h:::::::h h:::::::h n::::::n n::::::n oo:::::::::oo e::::::::::::::::::::es:::::::::::::::ss
ooooooooo hhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh nnnnnnnn nnnnnnn ooooooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sssssssssssssss




I meant a graph but I will certainly hold onto this.

Pretentious Old Man.
14th Jul 2010, 19:38
I'm not an "apologist." I'm just not an irrational tool who thinks the whole goddamn world is falling apart just because somebody had the gall to say that the game is going to be the same on all the consoles. SO IS EVERY GAME EVER. Bad Company 2 is identical on PC to the game on consoles, and the PC crowd is still devouring it, saying it's a worthy follow-up to Battlefield 2.

We all saw the goddamn gameplay leak, we SAW how big the levels were, we were TOLD by people there what the graphics look like, AND NONE OF THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT SOMEBODY SAID ABOUT THE DESIGN PLATFORM.

And the consoles can't handle large, open levels. Silly me. I must have been imagining the box I saw for Fallout 3 on Xbox. Or you know, the fact that the ORIGINAL Xbox can handle Morrowind. Oh, and also aforementioned Bad Company 2. I forgot how tiny and miniscule those levels are, especially with only allowing 12-players per map and everything. AND IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S ALSO RENDERING BUILDING DESTRUCTION AT THE SAME TIME OR ANYTHING.

Christ, just because I don't get my ******* panties in a bunch over something COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT apparently means that I'm an "apologist." No, I just have a brain that I like using every now and then, and I don't want to jump on the "**** sux" bandwagon just because somebody said something THAT DOESN'T IN ANY WAY CHANGE ANY INFORMATION WE HAVE ABOUT THE GAME ITSELF.

Chill, bro. S'cool.

Bluey71
14th Jul 2010, 19:49
I'm looking forward to the time when EM start releasing details of what they are doing to the next Thief game, if they try to pull the same kind of bull***** there as they have here over the last 3 years, I can see that forum being ablaze with flame.

The T4 forum has many more members than this DX3 side, and it will be that many more people to spread the bad word which will of course be self inflicted by EM.

Deus Ex has sadly lost a lot of it's fans - probably due to IW and the length of time since the last game. And it's probably time to admit, for me at least, with reference to DX, that the original games fans are now in the minority. Let them develop this lobotomized, streamlined cool 'game', just don't encourage it by giving them your money. Remember, it's going to be your money funding this direction for gaming.


Besides, we still have Mr Spector, who may one day get to publish his spiritual successor to what many many people, gamers, game critics and reviewers, game magazines and the national press have called the best game ever made.

That is something that can never be taken away from what gaming can achieve.

Maffis
14th Jul 2010, 20:18
Why the hell are people on this board so stupid to judge the game so fast?

WildcatPhoenix
14th Jul 2010, 20:20
Why the hell are people on this board so stupid to judge the game so fast?

Why are people on this board so stupid as to criticize every single person who voices a negative opinion? :hmm:

PenguinsFriend
14th Jul 2010, 20:23
Why the hell are people on this board so stupid to judge the game so fast?

hello and welcome

itsalladream
14th Jul 2010, 21:06
Goodness gracious. I loved the original, but some of the posts of passion for it just bring a tear to my eye...I mean, they are just, right from the heart - bordering on idolatry.

At what point is enough enough?

You think consoles can deliver the same functionality as high-end PCs? Fine. Live in your delusional world. I have nothing more to say on that subject.


True, maybe the levels aren't able to be as big as they are on pc, but did you ever stop to think that it may be enough? What, do you not want to wait for anything to load...just one huge map? Sure, you probably could do that on some PC out there. But do you NEED that, or, would it take away from anything if it can't?

And then people ***** about people *****ing at them...for *****ing about something that is out of their control...as if anyone gives a **** as to what they are *****ing about.

Anasumtj
14th Jul 2010, 21:07
this is an extremely useless panic thread about a blurb that has no actual information on it. we knew they had this approach all along. they profess to be working on the three platforms in paralell... so what? how does that mean anything worth an "uh-oh" thread?

Because there are lot of things that may work well on a console but not on a PC, and vice versa. And since this has shown itself thus far to be a game designed for consoles, which audience do you think will be losing out? No, I can't confirm that with concrete certainty, but you know how the industry works these days. I don't think anybody's being unreasonably pessimistic about this, although I hope the be proven wrong.

To me, "Same experience on all platforms" basically means "Xbox experience on all platforms".


I'm just not an irrational tool.

Ignoring everything else you said (I didn't bother reading past this point), you couldn't be more wrong here.

You are probably the biggest tool on this board, bro.

DeusEdt
14th Jul 2010, 21:16
So, this basically rules out any chance of manual keyboard input on keypads and computer terminals?

Damn.

Anasumtj
14th Jul 2010, 21:20
Pretty sure we still get manual input on keypads, but you aren't going to be typing in "knight_killer" with associate password any time.

I'm more concerned about the controls, menu and UI, and fonts so hueg you can actually feel them protruding from your monitor.

DeusEdt
14th Jul 2010, 21:42
Pretty sure we still get manual input on keypads, but you aren't going to be typing in "knight_killer" with associate password any time.

I'm more concerned about the controls, menu and UI, and fonts so hueg you can actually feel them protruding from your monitor.

I forget, did Invisible War have manual input on Keypads? From what I remember it just automatically input the codes if you knew them.

It seems like a rather OCD issue, but I always felt it added to the immersion no end in the original.

Ilves
14th Jul 2010, 22:03
I'm more concerned about the controls, menu and UI, and fonts so hueg you can actually feel them protruding from your monitor.

When Anfossi says the experience will be identical I think assuming the UI will be identical is premature, to put it mildly, and honestly, a tad unfair. Though I get where you're coming from.

Anasumtj
14th Jul 2010, 22:33
You'd think it would be something that obviously needs improvement/modifying when transitioning between platforms. And yet there are still lots of PC versions of games that just keep the old console design with nary a touch-up. Hopefully EM knows better, but statements like those in the OP just trigger a negative outlook in me. That wouldn't be the case if history didn't often vindicate my fears. =\ I can see EM making up a different interface for the PC version. I just hope it actually feels like a natural fit as opposed to an afterthought with loose ends.

This got me think about the old menu interface for UT99. Oh, how I loved it...

Pinky_Powers
14th Jul 2010, 22:41
The PC version is being worked on simultaneously with the other platforms. Which means, unless they are bad at their jobs, the PC version will feel like a PC game... because it is.

Still, I'd have preferred PC development as the principle... but that was never a realistic hope, I guess.

It's certainly good to know it's not a port.

Anasumtj
14th Jul 2010, 23:08
Well, I have concerns other than the UI that make me think this will play like a console game, but there's no need for me to beat that horse further. Bottom line is that a little finesse in the PC version's presentation will go a long way.

ArcR
14th Jul 2010, 23:41
Consoles don't suffer the same limitations they did 8 years ago. I understand the concern of controller limitations affecting menu design but this sounds more like a sales pitch to console gamers. I there is a lot of overreaction here and after seeing "contextual 3rd person" I understand why. Just relax until they release finished demo.

super...
15th Jul 2010, 00:35
My god this is a gleaming example of this forum's inability think objectively about information they put out.

The way you guys think is incredibly negative, your searching for something to find wrong in what they are doing. They never said they are porting a thing and yet you immediately think thats what is going to happen?

WildcatPhoenix
15th Jul 2010, 00:40
My god this is a gleaming example of this forum's inability think objectively about information they put out.

The way you guys think is incredibly negative, your searching for something to find wrong in what they are doing. They never said they are porting a thing and yet you immediately think thats what is going to happen?

And how are you not searching for something to find right?

Seriously, this "complaining about complainers" has got to stop. And here I go complaining about complaining about complainers.

It can go on forever.

maddermadcat
15th Jul 2010, 00:44
oh god there are three pages of this crap

They said you'll get the same experience. What this says to me is the game will play the same way and deliver the same content. In contrast, perhaps, to Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which was different on every platform and not always in a good way.

The article is short and the information is vague at best. At no point did it mention the UI. I know you guys are desperate for news again, but little bits of non-information like this shouldn't concern you.

super...
15th Jul 2010, 01:47
And how are you not searching for something to find right?

Seriously, this "complaining about complainers" has got to stop. And here I go complaining about complaining about complainers.

It can go on forever.

Seriously, this "complaining about people who complain about complainers" has got to stop. And here I go complaining about complaining about people who complain about complainers.

MechBFP
15th Jul 2010, 04:32
Consoles don't suffer the same limitations they did 8 years ago.
You mean other than the fact the technology in them is at least 5 to 6 years out of date?

Fluffis
15th Jul 2010, 05:42
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/images/uploads/201021/i-told-you-so1.jpg

Jerion
15th Jul 2010, 05:55
.....Jeez. PC purists! :lol:

Don't care about this myself. It's to be expected that lots of attention would be paid to the consoles. IMO, We should be glad that the PC version is being considered on at least equal ground with the others here, instead of being treated as an afterthought as so many studios do.

Still holding out for a dedicated PC Interface. No more Computer GUIs designed to be seen on a 42" TV from six feet away!

Gameplay can be the same on all versions, far as I care- let the consolers have some love! If they can find a way to make the controls more accessible (read: not less powerful, just less clunky), more power to 'em.

pringlepower
15th Jul 2010, 06:05
Just seems like a harmless statement of "It won't be an RPG for PC and DX: Cooking Mama for consoles. Everybody gets RPG"

Fluffis
15th Jul 2010, 06:06
.....Jeez. PC purists! :lol:

Don't care about this myself. It's to be expected that lots of attention would be paid to the consoles. IMO, We should be glad that the PC version is being considered on at least equal ground with the others here, instead of being treated as an afterthought as so many studios do.

Still holding out for a dedicated PC Interface. No more Computer GUIs designed to be seen on a 42" TV from six feet away!

Gameplay can be the same on all versions, far as I care- let the consolers have some love! If they can find a way to make the controls more accessible (read: not less powerful, just less clunky), more power to 'em.

You do know that in any scenario where a PC game is the same as a console game, the PC game has to be held back, right? Smaller levels are a symptom of this, for instance. Also, no manual typing of passwords and pass codes (one part of DX that I absolutely loved).

Edit: It's just like I've written before: Things are really starting to mount up now. There are so many little things that are telling me that this is primarily a console game with, perhaps, a few considerations for the PC crowd.

PizzaNo1
15th Jul 2010, 06:14
so, Deus Ex 3....the most anticipated game for PC since 2004 will be.... a dumbed down port from consoles to PC ?


If this is true Deus Ex 3 will be Invisible war 2.

Nah it's not gonna be that bad!
Its not gonna ruin the game(if controls are bad)
Its just going to create a irritable moment thats it!

pringlepower
15th Jul 2010, 06:14
You do know that in any scenario where a PC game is the same as a console game, the PC game has to be held back, right? Smaller levels are a symptom of this, for instance. Also, no manual typing of passwords and pass codes (one part of DX that I absolutely loved).

Edit: It's just like I've written before: Things are really starting to mount up now. There are so many little things that are telling me that this is primarily a console game with, perhaps, a few considerations for the PC crowd.

CoD 4 had lean. And a nice, lovely console.

Fluffis
15th Jul 2010, 06:15
CoD 4 had lean. And a nice, lovely console.

Oooh... I R Impressed. ;)

pringlepower
15th Jul 2010, 06:16
Oooh... Pinch me. ;)

With a ridiculously easy process of connecting to private servers that it was just begging to be pirated

Fluffis
15th Jul 2010, 06:26
With a ridiculously easy process of connecting to private servers that it was just begging to be pirated

... 'kay.

Dead-Eye
15th Jul 2010, 07:40
I think everyone is just upset about losing the lean keys. I always bound f to scope toggle and v to laser toggle.

Fluffis
15th Jul 2010, 07:43
I think everyone is just upset about losing the lean keys.

Yeah, that must be it.. :rolleyes:

pringlepower
15th Jul 2010, 07:43
I think everyone is just upset about losing the lean keys. I always bound f to scope toggle and v to laser toggle.

Never saw the point of laser toggle myself. Uh... what was the point?

Fluffis
15th Jul 2010, 07:46
Never saw the point of laser toggle myself. Uh... what was the point?

Combined with scope, it helped you see where you were going to hit. It kind of lost its purpose once you reached "advanced", and completely lost it when you reached "master".

PizzaNo1
15th Jul 2010, 07:51
Combined with scope, it helped you see where you were going to hit. It kind of lost its purpose once you reached "advanced", and completely lost it when you reached "master".

Yea laser didn't do much, exept paint a red dot.

pringlepower
15th Jul 2010, 07:59
Combined with scope, it helped you see where you were going to hit. It kind of lost its purpose once you reached "advanced", and completely lost it when you reached "master".

I kinda figured that was what the crosshairs were for

I mean if DE had a hardcore no-crosshairs or HUD mode, then the laser might have some use

Fluffis
15th Jul 2010, 08:05
I kinda figured that was what the crosshairs were for

No, that showed you the amount of spread you'd have. The laser showed you where the shot would hit at a given moment. At earlier levels, it can really help you out. Especially while moving around.

Kodaemon
15th Jul 2010, 09:09
Combined with scope, it helped you see where you were going to hit. It kind of lost its purpose once you reached "advanced", and completely lost it when you reached "master".

NEVER EVER combine laser with scope, since the scope nullifies the effect of the laser. And the effect of the laser is... 100% accuracy! No need to steady your weapon at all. It's the single most overpowered weapon mod, really.

Fluffis
15th Jul 2010, 09:20
NEVER EVER combine laser with scope, since the scope nullifies the effect of the laser. And the effect of the laser is... 100% accuracy! No need to steady your weapon at all. It's the single most overpowered weapon mod, really.

But it's no fun using it without the scope. "Powergaming" is boring. That's why I love what Shifter did with it.

Edit: and it wasn't 100% accuracy. Probably something like 90%. You could still miss if you were aiming at something, but not very often.

Anasumtj
15th Jul 2010, 15:46
Just seems like a harmless statement of "It won't be an RPG for PC and DX: Cooking Mama for consoles. Everybody gets RPG"

I doubt it, really.

Nobody is ever concerned about the console version getting the short end.

Jerion
15th Jul 2010, 16:23
You do know that in any scenario where a PC game is the same as a console game, the PC game has to be held back, right? Smaller levels are a symptom of this, for instance. Also, no manual typing of passwords and pass codes (one part of DX that I absolutely loved).

Edit: It's just like I've written before: Things are really starting to mount up now. There are so many little things that are telling me that this is primarily a console game with, perhaps, a few considerations for the PC crowd.

Of course. I'm not blind. I'm just not getting worked up about tiny details pre-release. It's simply not in my DNA to get outraged about anything this small until I can evaluate it for myself firsthand.

Console design limitations are a given. Realistically, they always have been. In a multi-platform title you always aim for the lowest common denominator and work up from there (excepting the Wii). Using recent sandbox games as an indication, small levels are not a concern anymore. Having a few considerations for the PC crowd is fine by me: I'd be happy with a PC-oriented interface and a raised visual ceiling (plus graphics tweaking!). The fact that the PC is being handled on equal footing with the others right now is a good thing here- most AAA teams leave it as an afterthought.

Pinky_Powers
15th Jul 2010, 16:50
The fact that the PC is being handled on equal footing with the others right now is a good thing here- most teams leave it as an afterthought.

It's a very, very good thing, to be honest.

I think most of us (me included) feared deep down that they were working primarily on the 360 or PS3 version, and that HR would get ported at the end. But knowing they have teams tending to each platform even now... this is wonderful news.

neilthecellist
15th Jul 2010, 18:00
Ergh, EIDOS better not do to DX:HR that BioWare did to Mass Effect 2.

Mass Effect 1 was specifically redone on the PC platform so that PC users could enjoy tons of flexibility. You could use WASD to cycle through menus (W and S acted as UP and DOWN so you didn't have to use the mouse). E acted as a Left-Click and/or acted as a mechanism to skip over to the "OK/Yes/Done" button, from which pressing E again would act as a Left-Click to confirm the choice selection. Also, instead of having to go to the pause menu, and then hit squad menu, or Journal, or Codex, you could simply press U, J, or H, respectively.

In Mass Effect 2 PC, BioWare decided for some reason to remove the WASD capability to cycle through menus, so I ended up having to click something on the top left of the screen, then drag my mouse all the way to the bottom right to hit an OK / Exit / Whatever button to confirm my first selection. Not only is this inconvenient, but after doing this endlessly throughout the course of the game, I started dragging my mouse to the wrong confirmation button at times and ended up cursing under my breath as I had just pressed the "Cancel" button.

Also, in Mass Effect 2 PC the ability to switch through weapons using F1, F2, F3, and F4 respectively for Pistol/Shotgun/Assault Rifle/Sniper Rifle was removed for some reason, so now I needed to enter the Power Screen (pause), move my mouse over to my weapon selection, wait for it to open up, hover my mouse over the selected weapon, select it with left click, and then let go of Shift to get out of the Power Screen. All in all, a very tedious process to switch weapons when in Mass Effect 1 I could just press F1 or something to switch to my sidearm pistol.

Also, graphics for ME 2 PC were horrendous unless you manually activated AA through nHancer, enabled HighPolyChar (character models parmeters) in Coalesced.ini and changed all LODBias values from 0 to -1 (no culling in distance). Otherwise, you'd be looking at smudgy character models (console-friendly), jagged edges (worse than ME1), and screwy draw distances (shadows suddenly popping up on objects as you walked closer to them). Also, draw distances were somehow locked in certain situations and most sceneries in Mass Effect 2 were simply small rooms with an illusion of large spaces by using an expansive-looking skybox. Too much console-catering here.

It seems like little things but trust me, accumulated over time (Mass Effect 2 is a very long game to finish) can be very frustrating and makes you wonder what differences are between PC and console versions of a game.


Of course. I'm not blind. I'm just not getting worked up about tiny details pre-release. It's simply not in my DNA to get outraged about anything this small until I can evaluate it for myself firsthand.

Touching, but I don't buy it. :)

Pinky_Powers
15th Jul 2010, 18:23
Also, graphics for ME 2 PC were horrendous unless you manually activated AA through nHancer,

You lost all credibility with me there. I've seen bad graphics, and I've seen games where jaggies were so bad, you simply HAD to have AA (FEAR1). And ME2 for the PC is neither of those. In fact, it's visually very impressive. The best I've seen since Crysis, actually.

And that's not an ignorant exaggeration. I'm a life-long student of Computer Graphics. I read all the magazines I've used all the programs and I've played the games. And ME2 blew my mind with how far the pushed the UnrealEngine3.
It's quite better than the 360 version, and leaps and bound ahead of ME1.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f310/Pinky_Powers/MassEffect22010-02-0122-24-09-63.jpg

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f310/Pinky_Powers/MassEffect22010-02-0122-31-59-57.jpg

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f310/Pinky_Powers/MassEffect22010-01-2901-52-38-35.jpg

beastrn
15th Jul 2010, 18:47
^ Looks like a ps2 game.



This got me think about the old menu interface for UT99. Oh, how I loved it...

So sad that nobody has even attempted to beat it. A lot of things UT99 did still haven't been surpassed, actually. Thanks for that one, consolers!


Of course. I'm not blind. I'm just not getting worked up about tiny details pre-release. It's simply not in my DNA to get outraged about anything this small until I can evaluate it for myself firsthand.

This is the difference though. We're NOT getting worked up about tiny details before knowing the facts. WE (I mean, people that have played games for a while, people who are observant, people that aren't gullible) have seen this over and over and over and over again. There comes a point (you will reach it one day, if you stick around) where you realize that all those tiny little things you think aren't worth getting worked up over are actually indicators of much larger problems.

I can tell you right now that DXHR will be a hand holding, follow the dot, gamey, unimpressive unimmersive experience similar to the let-down of Bioshock, Conviction, Vegas, etc. Go here, go there. Watch this watch that. Dumb dumb dumb.

And I can deduce this from the little details we know.

Oh and that bloody GAMEPLAY VIDEO.

Lots of people like tutorials, er, games like that, obviously - it's just disappointing that the most respected name in PC gaming has become a stupid console game.

You can argue that we're wrong all you like, but you're not offering anything to the table - the proof will be the game and the only thing I'm looking forward to from DXHR's release is being able to bask in the back-pedaling and "it's not dumbed down it's just saving time - who wanted to listen to people talk or have an inventory anyway?!" comments on these very forums.

Romeo
15th Jul 2010, 19:06
^ Looks like a ps2 game.



So sad that nobody has even attempted to beat it. A lot of things UT99 did still haven't been surpassed, actually. Thanks for that one, consolers!
Find me any PS2 game that comes even close to that.

I'm with Pinky, ME2 was one of the best looking games of yesteryear. Not for it's polygon counts and all that jazz, but rather for what it did with what it had. Rather than being another forest green or post-apocolyspe brown, the game had a whole gauntlet of scenes, perspectives and color pallettes.

beastrn
15th Jul 2010, 19:15
Comparing console graphics is like asking two half blind people to describe a landscape - it's just tricks and contrast.

Take out the Depth of Field and excessive Bloom, (remember when people made fun of bloom for being a gimmick?) and those screenshots look very unimpressive. Granted UE3 looked amazing when it first came out - but ME2 doesn't improve upon that old engine at all.

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/anubis_800_600_no18.jpg

Marses
15th Jul 2010, 19:19
You do know that in any scenario where a PC game is the same as a console game, the PC game has to be held back, right? Smaller levels are a symptom of this, for instance. Also, no manual typing of passwords and pass codes (one part of DX that I absolutely loved).

Yeah. GTA4 and Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect 1 and 2 have such tiny levels. As does Dead Rising. Just TINY.

And, in the gameplay video, there is actual typing of a passcode!


Edit: It's just like I've written before: Things are really starting to mount up now. There are so many little things that are telling me that this is primarily a console game with, perhaps, a few considerations for the PC crowd.
Yeah. Okay.

beastrn
15th Jul 2010, 19:23
Yeah. Okay.

Hey Marses I'm actually interested in this; are you able to provide any sensible argument that they don't? Personally I don't see how 3rd person cover/controller based movement/fully sick cutscenes/no inventory/simple skill system = an intelligent and worthy PC game. Can you explain why it might?

Marses
15th Jul 2010, 19:23
Take out the Depth of Field and excessive Bloom, (remember when people made fun of bloom for being a gimmick?) and those screenshots look very unimpressive. Granted UE3 looked amazing when it first came out - but ME2 doesn't improve upon that old engine at all.
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/anubis_800_600_no18.jpg
Yeah. Take out Daniel Day Lewis and the entire subplot with the boy, and 'There Will Be Blood' is a pretty unimpressive movie.

beastrn
15th Jul 2010, 19:25
It would be more appropriate to say something like "Take CGI out of Avatar and it would be an unimpressive movie"

Kodaemon
15th Jul 2010, 19:29
That's the problem talking about graphics - for some people, graphics are all about raw engine power, while for others (like me) they're about style and visual appeal.

Marses
15th Jul 2010, 19:38
Hey Marses I'm actually interested in this; are you able to provide any sensible argument that they don't?
Perhaps you should scroll back to when you were calling people retards and actually read my posts.


Personally I don't see how 3rd person cover/controller based movement/fully sick cutscenes/no inventory/simple skill system = an intelligent and worthy PC game. Can you explain why it might?
3rd person cover is a matter of tastes. I have no problem with it. I love the Mass Effect series. I loved its implementation in Rainbow Six. In the original Deus Ex, you could head around a corner, be spotted, duck back behind the corner, and the AI would just go "Hmm, I thought I saw a guy in the coat. Must be nothing." For me, I'd rather have third person cover than being able to be spotted and dismissed.

"Controller based movement"? Like previous times, you're really grasping at straws here. Do you mean through the HUD? Do you mean through gameplay? The "controller based movement" of Mass Effect 2 didn't make my gameplay experience any less enjoyable on the PC than it did on the 360. Sure, there were oversights, but having the f-keys to change weapons isn't in any way, shape or form a dealbreaker, or anything even approaching a dealbreaker.

Cutscenes are a narrative technique. The original had them for all conversations. I see no problem with using them to emphasis a plot point. Often brought up is the cutscene in the vents in the gameplay video as some sort of proof that these cutscenes are an abyssal of suck. I don't buy that. We can learn more about the tertiary characters watching them as well as hearing them as we can just by hearing them. You still have the tension of not being caught before and after the cutscene, and get to actually listen to what they're saying. From a storytelling level, I like it.

"No inventory"? What?

I like the skill system for Adam Jensen. For JC Denton, I don't.

Marses
15th Jul 2010, 19:45
That's the problem talking about graphics - for some people, graphics are all about raw engine power, while for others (like me) they're about style and visual appeal.
Me as well. There was a screenshot comparison of, I believe, Gears of War, Modern Warfare and Killzone going around the internet a month or so ago, and how all three games, stylistically, looked the same. Blood splatter on the camera, landscapes dominated by gray, things of the link. I'd much rather have someone trying to go against the grain and make arresting visuals that add something distinct to the game rather than trying to match the Crysis' of the world. So I'm very pleased with Human Revolution's look. Now we can get into the argument of "should it be gold or blue", but that's another discussion.

WildcatPhoenix
15th Jul 2010, 20:23
The black and gold color scheme is really the least of my worries. I'm not in love with it, but you're right, at least they are going for a distinctive look.

I think those of us who love PC-gaming have to admit that a large bulk of the gaming population considers consoles to be the primary (if not only) source of simulation entertainment. Ever since games like Goldeneye and Halo proved that FPS can work on consoles, they've quickly and inexorably taken over the market. Console games used to be confined mostly to platform jumpers, puzzle games, and or RTS like Command & Conquer.

Now just about every genre is dominated by X-box and PS3. PC gaming, as we fondly remember it, is dead. Long live PC gaming.

ThePrecursor
15th Jul 2010, 20:27
Now we can get into the argument of "should it be gold or blue", but that's another discussion.

Seeing how they have the cyber-renaissance stylistic design in many areas in the game, gold is definitely the way to go. Blue would just be awkward and could be disconnecting from the overal layout of the game and wouldn't achieve the same effect. While blue set the tone just right for the original, which was set after the collapse, gold fits perfectly with the idea of a golden age of technology in DX:HR.

As for color in general, blue is a rather "cold" color - as opposed to gold which is a "warm" color. The way they handled color schemes here makes perfect sense.

pringlepower
15th Jul 2010, 20:37
In Mass Effect 2 PC, BioWare decided for some reason to remove the WASD capability to cycle through menus, so I ended up having to click something on the top left of the screen, then drag my mouse all the way to the bottom right to hit an OK / Exit / Whatever button to confirm my first selection. Not only is this inconvenient, but after doing this endlessly throughout the course of the game, I started dragging my mouse to the wrong confirmation button at times and ended up cursing under my breath as I had just pressed the "Cancel" button.

Also, in Mass Effect 2 PC the ability to switch through weapons using F1, F2, F3, and F4 respectively for Pistol/Shotgun/Assault Rifle/Sniper Rifle was removed for some reason, so now I needed to enter the Power Screen (pause), move my mouse over to my weapon selection, wait for it to open up, hover my mouse over the selected weapon, select it with left click, and then let go of Shift to get out of the Power Screen. All in all, a very tedious process to switch weapons when in Mass Effect 1 I could just press F1 or something to switch to my sidearm pistol.



Okay the problem isn't with Mass Effect 2, it's just you're evidently playing the game while so drunk or high so that you can't accurately click a confirmation button. How is it that after playing the game over and over you get worse at finding the right button to click.

And the power wheel is fine. Easy and quick to bring up, and click an icon. And really how much work is there in letting go of the shift button. In fact in ME2 there's less clicking since they finally added the ability to map companion powers to number keys. Since you use a PC and seem to hate clicking so much you might be better suited with a console controller.

pringlepower
15th Jul 2010, 20:41
The black and gold color scheme is really the least of my worries. I'm not in love with it, but you're right, at least they are going for a distinctive look.

I think those of us who love PC-gaming have to admit that a large bulk of the gaming population considers consoles to be the primary (if not only) source of simulation entertainment. Ever since games like Goldeneye and Halo proved that FPS can work on consoles, they've quickly and inexorably taken over the market. Console games used to be confined mostly to platform jumpers, puzzle games, and or RTS like Command & Conquer.

Now just about every genre is dominated by X-box and PS3. PC gaming, as we fondly remember it, is dead. Long live PC gaming.

PC gaming is expensive. You don't have to be a casual gamer to not want to chip out a couple hundred every few years for a new gfx card, while you can buy a console once, and have it last several years.

Fluffis
15th Jul 2010, 20:47
Yeah. GTA4 and Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect 1 and 2 have such tiny levels. As does Dead Rising. Just TINY.


They could have been bigger if they were developed for PC first-hand. Just saying.



And, in the gameplay video, there is actual typing of a passcode!


On a console? I must have missed that.

WildcatPhoenix
15th Jul 2010, 20:52
While it's true he doesn't "type" in the passcode, at least he does pull up the numpad and select each individual number.

Not as immersive as actually typing in passwords and keycodes on a QWERTY/10-key, but it's better than DX: The Conspiracy where it automatically inputs the codes for you.

Credit where marginal credit is due.

pringlepower
15th Jul 2010, 20:53
They could have been bigger if they were developed for PC first-hand. Just saying.



On a console? I must have missed that.

Red Dead was big enough. As much fun as it would be to ride from Texas to Canada, it might also be really boring.

Pretentious Old Man.
15th Jul 2010, 21:03
Marketing rhetoric. Either its primarily developed for consoles, or it isn't. The two best ports I think I've played are Mass Effect 2 and CoD4. Both of which still felt like console games.

I'm not overly annoyed, chiefly because it's the same with quite literally EVERY multi-platform game, but I do think they might have had the decency to just add a couple of stuff for the PC that was in DX1 (cough*password typing* cough).

The engine does look quite good on the PC, though. Those that haven't already done so, download the Tomb Raider: Underworld demo. I personally prefer it to UT3 as an engine, looking at the rather amusingly titled "bigfile" with a hex-editor, I can see why they decided to use it.

Summary: don't be too disappointed, but on the other hand don't expect DX1.

xfxcrcm
15th Jul 2010, 21:06
It's pretty disappointing that we won't see a properly done PC port, and since it's not as mod-centric as Fallout 3 or Oblivion, there's probably no chance of something like the DARNified UI.

But I can't really blame them for focusing on consoles when that's where all the money is and when console gamers don't view stealing as their 'right' the same way hippy dippy linux weirdos and pimply aspies do.

TrickyVein
15th Jul 2010, 21:09
I offer this guy's page (Scott Anderson - http://www.sra-art.com/1_Underworld_Mat.html) for anyone interested in more of the technical aspects of TR:U engine and what it can do. :)

Well, it's more related to Zbrush and rendering within Maya, but you can find out more about how some of the environments were lit and how materials were made, etc. It's cool.

Ashpolt
15th Jul 2010, 21:18
Right, going to skip out on most of this conversation because it's all been said 10 times before, but I had to pick up on this:


I'm with Pinky, ME2 was one of the best looking games of yesteryear.

Since when did ME2 become a game of yesteryear? It came out in January!

*doesn't let the door hit him on the way out.*

Angel-A
15th Jul 2010, 21:31
The article didn't say much of anything...
So does this mean the PC version will be dragged down with consoletardation, or just that the experience will be the same for all platforms (as in no chopping up HR into fail for the console). :scratch:

Irate_Iguana
15th Jul 2010, 21:36
The article didn't say much of anything...
So does this mean the PC version will be dragged down with consoletardation, or just that the experience will be the same for all platforms (as in no chopping up HR into fail for the console). :scratch:

Think of it this way. You know how lean got cut out of MW2 because there weren't enough buttons on the console? If something gameplay related doesn't work on the console it will get cut. There will be no difference gameplay wise between the versions. Hopefully the UI will be made specifically for the PC, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Marses
15th Jul 2010, 22:30
Seeing how they have the cyber-renaissance stylistic design in many areas in the game, gold is definitely the way to go. Blue would just be awkward and could be disconnecting from the overal layout of the game and wouldn't achieve the same effect. While blue set the tone just right for the original, which was set after the collapse, gold fits perfectly with the idea of a golden age of technology in DX:HR.

As for color in general, blue is a rather "cold" color - as opposed to gold which is a "warm" color. The way they handled color schemes here makes perfect sense.
Oh, I definitely agree. Wholeheartedly.

Fluffis
15th Jul 2010, 23:15
Red Dead was big enough.


But then again, they seem to have cut back some on, for instance, animation on that one. The "moonwalk to cover" animation is, frankly, laughable.



As much fun as it would be to ride from Texas to Canada, it might also be really boring.

Well, that depends on how much there would be to see, and how much there was to experience. And of course the music.

Edit: It's just that this is a discussion you can't "win". A PC game always has more potential for larger levels, better graphics, better animations and so on, than a console. It's the nature of the beast. A console is static; a PC is not.

Jerion
15th Jul 2010, 23:29
^ Looks like a ps2 game.



So sad that nobody has even attempted to beat it. A lot of things UT99 did still haven't been surpassed, actually. Thanks for that one, consolers!



This is the difference though. We're NOT getting worked up about tiny details before knowing the facts. WE (I mean, people that have played games for a while, people who are observant, people that aren't gullible) have seen this over and over and over and over again. There comes a point (you will reach it one day, if you stick around) where you realize that all those tiny little things you think aren't worth getting worked up over are actually indicators of much larger problems.

I can tell you right now that DXHR will be a hand holding, follow the dot, gamey, unimpressive unimmersive experience similar to the let-down of Bioshock, Conviction, Vegas, etc. Go here, go there. Watch this watch that. Dumb dumb dumb.

And I can deduce this from the little details we know.

Oh and that bloody GAMEPLAY VIDEO.

Lots of people like tutorials, er, games like that, obviously - it's just disappointing that the most respected name in PC gaming has become a stupid console game.

You can argue that we're wrong all you like, but you're not offering anything to the table - the proof will be the game and the only thing I'm looking forward to from DXHR's release is being able to bask in the back-pedaling and "it's not dumbed down it's just saving time - who wanted to listen to people talk or have an inventory anyway?!" comments on these very forums.

Let me start by explaining that Right Now, I'm speaking for me. Not for Square, Not For E-M, not even for the other Moderators or Keir. Me.

I don't care what you think, or how you view the game. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I do however think it's idiotic to simply equate solid multi-platform support with developer and project stupidity, simply because many existing 'AAA' titles aren't ambitious enough. This is an unfinished game made by a new team at an unpublished studio. No precedent for expecting poor production here. Food for Thought.

I never evaluate anything this unimportant (it's a video game! It entertains and engages us!) until I experience it myself. I know enough about game design to realize that there's a good reason for everything in a title as considered as this one. In this case while the choice is probably profit driven to ensure that the console versions (the moneymakers) don't suck, It's also apparent to me that the Computer is not being left out in the cold, as has been done so many times before by so many different dev teams. Far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.

bukkit
15th Jul 2010, 23:45
ah i see.

cancelling pre-order in 3...2...1...

Shralla
15th Jul 2010, 23:55
But then again, they seem to have cut back some on, for instance, animation on that one. The "moonwalk to cover" animation is, frankly, laughable.

That's called a glitch, and they happen in every game.

bukkit
15th Jul 2010, 23:57
That's called a glitch, and they happen in every game.

+ red dead had a horrible draw distance, horrible framerate, and medicore textures... that also happens on many console games.

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 00:02
That's called a glitch, and they happen in every game.

You call it a "glitch". I call it "lack of attention to animation". Basically, they're the same thing, but your word doesn't point out what the problem is. It all boils down to cutting down on animation, in the interest of having a large sandbox.

Shralla
16th Jul 2010, 00:04
+ red dead had a horrible draw distance

Okay, what the **** are you talking about? Now you're just making up bull****, because the draw distance in Red Dead is FAR from "horrible," and is more approaching the "amazing" side of the technological spectrum. I can't even BELIEVE how much bull**** you're trying to feed me right now.


horrible framerate

So running at a steady 30 FPS which dips occasionally in periods of high action is also considered "horrible," now?


and medicore textures

Which it still would have had on PC, because you either go for quality or quantity, and the game was based on quantity.


You call it a "glitch". I call it "lack of attention to animation". Basically, they're the same thing, but your word doesn't point out what the problem is. It all boils down to cutting down on animation, in the interest of having a large sandbox.

No, it's just a glitch. I'VE never had it happen to me, and that right there pretty much proves it. Unless it repeats every time, it's not a "lack of attention to animation."

Jerion
16th Jul 2010, 00:19
So running at a steady 30 FPS which dips occasionally in periods of high action is also considered "horrible," now?


I'm with you here, I consider 30 FPS to be good, anything above to be fantastic. Many "enthusiast" PC gamers freak out if their frame-rate dips below 60 though.

Shralla
16th Jul 2010, 00:21
I'm with you here, I consider 30 FPS to be good, anything above to be fantastic. Many "enthusiast" PC gamers freak out if their frame-rate dips below 60 though.

It all depends on the game, and the nature of the dip. I would vastly prefer a framerate locked at 30 to one that constantly fluctuates between 30 and 60. Honestly, Red Dead's framerate was fine, ESPECIALLY considering how massive the game was and how gorgeous everything looked. It really only dropped below 30 when a bunch of stuff was blowing up in your face, or if you got knocked off your horse and trampled by ALL the bad guys at once.

And you know what? The game itself was ******* awesome.

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 00:32
So running at a steady 30 FPS which dips occasionally in periods of high action is also considered "horrible," now?


No, but it's not "good". It's "okay", or "adequate", but nothing more.



Which it still would have had on PC


Now, you're just speculating.



No, it's just a glitch. I'VE never had it happen to me, and that right there pretty much proves it. Unless it repeats every time, it's not a "lack of attention to animation."

There are very few times where a glitch is something else than a software problem. And if it is a software problem, they haven't spent enough time with it. A glitch in animation like that one, where the character is actually seen moving, is most certainly a problem on the software side. If it was a jump from one spot to another, it could be something different. Glitches are, of course, notoriously hard to pin down, so they have a tendency to be "overlooked" (i.e. ignored).

Marses
16th Jul 2010, 01:31
No, but it's not "good". It's "okay", or "adequate", but nothing more.


I forgot. An "adequate" frame rate limits the potential of the game.

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 01:49
I forgot. An "adequate" frame rate limits the potential of the game.

No, but if you try a game at a steady 30 fps, with dips, and then compare it with the same game at 60 fps, with the same dips, you are going to notice one hell of a difference. Higher fps is more pleasing to the eye, and to the experience of the game. More fluid character movement, better-looking physical effects and so on.

I used to think ~30 fps was good. I was adamant about it. I was stuck on the whole "movies are 24 fps, and they're fluid" thing. I couldn't believe the difference would be as big as people said. That was until I got a computer that could run those same games at 60-70 or sometimes even 100 fps. The difference was staggering.

Marses
16th Jul 2010, 02:01
No, but if you try a game at a steady 30 fps, with dips, and then compare it with the same game at 60 fps, with the same dips, you are going to notice one hell of a difference. Higher fps is more pleasing to the eye, and to the experience of the game. More fluid character movement, better-looking physical effects and so on.

I used to think ~30 fps was good. I was adamant about it. I was stuck on the whole "movies are 24 fps, and they're fluid" thing. That was until I got a computer that could run those same games at 60-70 or sometimes even 100 fps. The difference was staggering.
I thought when talking about 30 fps that it was a given the frame rate was locked.

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 02:09
I thought when talking about 30 fps that it was a given the frame rate was locked.

They were talking about dips, when talking about Red Dead Redemption, so I just built on that.

But still... it doesn't matter if it's "locked" or not. A locked fps of 50 or 60 is still far better than a locked fps of 30. Even 40 is noticeably better. Edit: Hell, even an fps that swings between 60 and 30 (kind of hypothetical, unless it is extremely intense in places) is better most of the time. The rest of the time it's exactly the same. 30 fps just isn't more than "okay".

Marses
16th Jul 2010, 02:32
But still... it doesn't matter if it's "locked" or not. A locked fps of 50 or 60 is still far better than a locked fps of 30. Even 40 is noticeably better. Edit: Hell, even an fps that swings between 60 and 30 (kind of hypothetical, unless it is extremely intense in places) is better most of the time. The rest of the time it's exactly the same. 30 fps just isn't more than "okay".
I'm not saying it's more than okay. It's perfectly adequate.

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 02:44
I'm not saying it's more than okay. It's perfectly adequate.

But "adequate" and "okay" are both limiting in the experience of a game. 30 fps is good enough to play a game without getting an migraine from the stuttering, but you're not experiencing the game in the same way that you would at 40-100 fps. There's no motion blur in the average game, so fluidity of motion is lost at 30 FPS, compared to higher fps. It's a fact.

I see that as limiting; if not the potential of the game itself (in terms of gameplay) then at least the experience.

Shralla
16th Jul 2010, 18:32
Hell, even an fps that swings between 60 and 30 (kind of hypothetical, unless it is extremely intense in places) is better most of the time.

No. Not ever. ANY kind of swing between 30 and 60 is HUGE and looks like a pile of crap. I've never dropped below the mid 20s, and if they even tried to run it at 60, it would just run at 30 most of the time anyway, only there would be way more fluctuations, which would be far more jarring than the solution now.

And I'm laughing that you think you need motion blur to capture "fluidity of motion." Motion blur is another stupid layer of paint that devs slap on their game to make it look very slightly prettier, and devour massive amounts of system resources.

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 19:38
No. Not ever. ANY kind of swing between 30 and 60 is HUGE and looks like a pile of crap.


Yes, it's huge. But even at its lowest point, the game would still run smoother than a game that starts out at 30 fps and then dips.


if they even tried to run it at 60, it would just run at 30 most of the time anyway, only there would be way more fluctuations, which would be far more jarring than the solution now.


And that would be the point... A console can't handle that size game (RDR, that is), even at those relatively low-level graphics, with an fps rate over 30. With the graphics we have seen on DX:HR, a level would have to be fairly small to even have 30 fps, or it would have to be broken up by loading areas. If the latter is the case, it's not a problem. They can have large levels, but let the console version have loading areas, while the PC version just kept going. Since they want to have the experience as close to each other as possible for both platforms, we'll probably see smaller levels than what's possible for the PC.



And I'm laughing that you think you need motion blur to capture "fluidity of motion." Motion blur is another stupid layer of paint that devs slap on their game to make it look very slightly prettier, and devour massive amounts of system resources.

Motion blur, in the sense I mentioned it (the original sense), is what makes movies - that usually run at 24 fps - look fluid (actually, the original sense would be blurring in photos, but we're talking about animation so...). If they had that fps without motion blur, the audience would experience stuttering, and flickering. Just like in a game running at that kind of rate.

DEC014
27th Jul 2010, 18:06
First of all, I'm not going to judge anything until I see a playable demo (not any gameplay videos, but an actual piece of software I can test drive). This is a new development crew (like previously said), and that's both good and bad:
1. They weren't the guys specifically behind DX1 (DX: The Conspiracy), so you can't expect it to be as awesome as the original, but many sequels are hardly as good.
2. They are new, so they look at where the market's at (XBOX360 and PS3). Like previously said, PC gamers like myself are becoming more and more scarce. Many reasons for this include DRM issues to decrease piracy. Extremely irritating when I can't play a game unless I'm connected to the Internet to "verify" I'm a legitimate owner of the game.
3. Because they are new... They weren't the geniuses <sarcasm> behind DW:IW or other retarded PC ports, so it may turn out alright. Yes, I understand they have to develop for the weakest platform and go from there, but hopefully interface and menu navigation won't suck to high heaven.

Like it was said before, the only thing we've seen demonstrated was on a console. There haven't been any demonstrations for a PC, so we can't alleviate any worries. But I also think it's still too early to panic over anything.



But I can't really blame them for focusing on consoles when that's where all the money is and when console gamers don't view stealing as their 'right' the same way hippy dippy linux weirdos and pimply aspies do.

Now this statement infuriates me. I am what you would call a "hippy dippy linux weirdo" and there's a big difference between open source/GPL licensing and "stealing", or what I like to call pirating (which is theft no matter how you want to put it). Linux users believe in GPL/open source not piracy. Not to mention most games only work in Windows. Game developers have been implementing DRM since DX1 (CD check, so maybe secure disc or SecurROM), and it just keeps getting more restrictive as stated in #2 which is running off many PC Gamers, but it doesn't discourage the pirates, they just find new ways around their DRM. But my point is just because some thieves use Linux, doesn't mean most do (most use IRC); and it certainly doesn't mean that Linux users should be branded in this way.

Jerion
27th Jul 2010, 18:25
I'd rather have a game stay at 30 than jump between 30 and 60. :)

'Course, 30 fps at 720p is much easier than 30 fps at 1080p or 1440p.



And that would be the point... A console can't handle that size game (RDR, that is), even at those relatively low-level graphics, with an fps rate over 30. With the graphics we have seen on DX:HR, a level would have to be fairly small to even have 30 fps, or it would have to be broken up by loading areas. If the latter is the case, it's not a problem. They can have large levels, but let the console version have loading areas, while the PC version just kept going. Since they want to have the experience as close to each other as possible for both platforms, we'll probably see smaller levels than what's possible for the PC.


Not exactly true. They don't need to do loading screens everywhere like DX. The engine DX:HR is built on is pretty good about streaming large areas smoothly, as I understand it. They do seem to be throwing in a couple of save-load transitions in the larger hub levels for moving to and from the outdoorsy area and separate indoor sections. What this means is that it won't be confined to smaller levels simply because of the console support. That L.C.D. aspect of development means that the 360 will (most likely) determine level sizes across all three platforms, true, but the levels themselves won't be terribly restricted. Huge levels can be streamed smoothly on the 360. That's been the case for a couple years now.

Nyysjan
27th Jul 2010, 18:55
Personally, i'm not that concerned with the map sizes, small maps with loading screens can work if done well, nor with graphics (original had bad graphics even for its time, and i still love the game).
I'm not even worried about the lack of skills (i'm 99% certain that game would be better with skills in addition to augs, but fine, i can live without them).
What worries me is that i'll end up playing with a crappy controls, bad user interface and miserable excuse of an inventory.
well, that and that they might dumb down the plot (not because players are stupid, but because execs think we are), that they'll sacrifice stealth and immersion for "cool" takedowns and fast cinematic combat, that the 3rd person cover will make stealth too easy or breaks immersion, that they might stuff in a totally superfluous and/or stupid, yet mandatory, romantic sideplot (i like romance in games, when done well, but most of the times it ends up with me wanting to strangle my romantic interest for being a moron, or commit suicide for being a total wimp/doormat, or both), and, ofcourse, that Adam Jensen might end up being complete ***** and a whiner instead of a stoic badass.
but that's just me being grumpy antisocial pessimistic misanthrope with atitude issues.

Fluffis
27th Jul 2010, 19:33
Huge levels can be streamed smoothly on the 360. That's been the case for a couple years now.

Well, I'm not a console gamer, so I did not know that. That gives me a bit more hope at least. :)

pringlepower
27th Jul 2010, 19:49
Well, I'm not a console gamer, so I did not know that. That gives me a bit more hope at least. :)

Don't be too put down by the DX PS2 port. While some of the small-level problems were due to the PS2's limitations, it was also just a pretty bad port. DXHR should be a lot better, being developed from the ground up and all

biofuel
27th Jul 2010, 19:50
"One day, a black man got up out of his bed in the morning and began walking to Antarctica to go sunbathing."

We're now in a situation where it'll take a scenario as unlikely as this for the following to be rendered erroneous:

"Unfortunately, Deus Ex: Human Revolution will live up to very few people's expectations when considering the possibility of a new-gen Deus Ex release."

Jerion
27th Jul 2010, 20:48
Well, I'm not a console gamer, so I did not know that. That gives me a bit more hope at least. :)

If you want a prime example, look at Fallout 3. Huge streamed world. They did that on the 360. :)

(I'm not a console gamer either, but I keep track of how console games handle)

Fluffis
27th Jul 2010, 20:50
Don't be too put down by the DX PS2 port. While some of the small-level problems were due to the PS2's limitations, it was also just a pretty bad port. DXHR should be a lot better, being developed from the ground up and all

It wasn't so much about the DX PS2 port (I know literally nothing about any specifics of it :D), as it was a comment based on the general console information I have gotten from friends who are console gamers. The consensus there seems to be that they think that a lot of console games could stand to have the size of levels increased. This may be due to limitations imposed by the gaming companies themselves, though. It's not first-hand information, since I hate playing with a controller. :eek:

Jerion
27th Jul 2010, 20:51
It wasn't so much about the DX PS2 port (I know literally nothing about any specifics of it :D), as it was a comment based on the general console information I have gotten from friends who are console gamers. The consensus there seems to be that they think that a lot of console games could stand to have the size of levels increased. This may be due to limitations imposed by the gaming companies themselves, though. It's not first-hand information, since I hate playing with a controller. :eek:

You should have them play Just Cause 2. They won't find any cramped levels to complain about there!

I suspect the smaller, more compact levels are due to production schedules. If you want a roughly equal, ever-higher level of detail across the game, level sizes have to be trimmed down to make sure that can be accomplished by deadline. Of course in some cases the level designer could simply feel that a smaller space is what's ideal.

Fluffis
27th Jul 2010, 21:04
You should have them play Just Cause 2. They won't find any cramped levels to complain about there!


I'll tell them. ;)



I suspect the smaller, more compact levels are due to production schedules. If you want a roughly equal, ever-higher level of detail across the game, level sizes have to be trimmed down to make sure that can be accomplished by deadline. Of course in some cases the level designer could simply feel that a smaller space is what's ideal.

Yeah, after what I've heard here now, I'm inclined to agree.

Pooeypants
28th Jul 2010, 23:37
Well, at least the game engine isn't based on the crappy UE3 (everything looks like a different shade of brown? It's the new Quake II... ). I've been playing TR:Underworld of which this based and it's fairly decent although it does have some interesting clipping issues (Lara gets stuck on certain angles and I can't move unless I use the guns) but I'm sure it wouldn't carry over to a brand new game.
Same game is fine by me, I've got a gamepad (playing RE5 on PC with it) just in case. But I got a feeling that this will very streamlined like IW, but that's what always happens when consoles are thrown into the mix.
I'm guessing there'll be no DX11 support (or DX10)?

Shralla
29th Jul 2010, 00:38
Well, at least the game engine isn't based on the crappy UE3 (everything looks like a different shade of brown? It's the new Quake II... ).

I love when people falsely attribute the appearance of a game to the engine that it uses instead of the art direction.

Ashpolt
29th Jul 2010, 01:12
I love when people falsely attribute the appearance of a game to the engine that it uses instead of the art direction.

To be fair, the engine does contribute a lot to the look of the game, unless some massive effort is put in to stop it doing so. As a general rule, Source games are all easily recognisable as Source games: Unreal Engine 3 games can be picked out a mile away by their texture pop-in and deep bump mapping: the Doom 3 engine's easily recognisable because of it's overuse of (nowadays quite low res) bump maps, etc. Sure, art style is a huge factor, but you can't write off the engine.

Fluffis
29th Jul 2010, 01:41
To be fair, the engine does contribute a lot to the look of the game, unless some massive effort is put in to stop it doing so. As a general rule, Source games are all easily recognisable as Source games: Unreal Engine 3 games can be picked out a mile away by their texture pop-in and deep bump mapping: the Doom 3 engine's easily recognisable because of it's overuse of (nowadays quite low res) bump maps, etc. Sure, art style is a huge factor, but you can't write off the engine.

^^^ This is very true. No matter how good you are at using it (and decorating it), you are always restricted by what the engine is actually capable of doing.

Shralla
29th Jul 2010, 02:12
Yeah, I'm sure all of you saw the first videos of Mirror's Edge and immediately said "That's UE3, I know because it looks just like Gears of War."

Art style=/=game engine. Game engine doesn't dictate colors palette, amount of bloom, character models, or anything else. It's 100% art direction.

Seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_3

Alpha Protocol
APB
Batman
Borderlands
DC Universe Online
Fairtyale Fights
Liesure Suit Larry
Lost Odyssey

I'm just going in alphabetical order, but there are a TON of games that use UE3 that you would never even know without being told.

Jerion
29th Jul 2010, 02:26
A lot of people here are assuming that the engine isn't being modified. DX:HR in-game looks nothing like TR:U, yet it uses modified version of the latter's engine. Mirror's Edge, for example, took UE3 and added a color-reflecting lighting system.

Fluffis
29th Jul 2010, 03:16
A lot of people here are assuming that the engine isn't being modified. DX:HR in-game looks nothing like TR:U, yet it uses modified version of the latter's engine. Mirror's Edge, for example, took UE3 and added a color-reflecting lighting system.

Of course they modify, but unless you completely rewrite it, there's almost always going to be "tells", so to speak, that indicate what engine is the base.

Jerion
29th Jul 2010, 03:21
Of course they modify, but unless you completely rewrite it, there's almost always going to be "tells", so to speak, that indicate what engine is the base.

Well yeah, but I just thought I'd remind that just because the stock engine looks a certain way doesn't mean it has to have a large impact on how games built with the engine looks.

Pinky_Powers
29th Jul 2010, 04:26
Yeah, I'm sure all of you saw the first videos of Mirror's Edge and immediately said "That's UE3, I know because it looks just like Gears of War."

Art style=/=game engine. Game engine doesn't dictate colors palette, amount of bloom, character models, or anything else. It's 100% art direction.

Seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_3

Alpha Protocol
APB
Batman
Borderlands
DC Universe Online
Fairtyale Fights
Liesure Suit Larry
Lost Odyssey


Mass Effect 2 is the one that showed me just how powerful UnrealEngine3 truly was. After the horribly plastic-looking characters of BioShock, I had all but turned away from the engine. But it really does have to do with who's utilizing it, and what virtues they hold to.

K^2
29th Jul 2010, 06:30
Well, at least the game engine isn't based on the crappy UE3 (everything looks like a different shade of brown? It's the new Quake II... ). I've been playing TR:Underworld of which this based and it's fairly decent although it does have some interesting clipping issues (Lara gets stuck on certain angles and I can't move unless I use the guns) but I'm sure it wouldn't carry over to a brand new game.
Same game is fine by me, I've got a gamepad (playing RE5 on PC with it) just in case. But I got a feeling that this will very streamlined like IW, but that's what always happens when consoles are thrown into the mix.
I'm guessing there'll be no DX11 support (or DX10)?
None of the things you attribute to the engine of TRU will carry over to HR except by coincidence. Unless you have some idea of resource management handling in TRU and the way it streamed in data, you won't recognize it.

Isterio
29th Jul 2010, 09:23
If the game forges continue producing games for a cross platform audience, they have to ignore the specific advantages of the individual medium.

imho, the PC is the ultimative gaming platform. There is almost no issue, which can't be done better on a PC, than on consoles.

So if companies keep "dumbing down" their games, it's no wonder that the game market for the pc is shrinking. A console is cheaper and if the version of the game isn't better on the pc anymore, a console might be the better choice.

I'm also disappointed in Eidos. As usual the money is more important, than the pride of producing a special game. And the statements keep changing in favour of the consoles. This is especially sad, because I like DE very much and the presentation with the great video did build up my expectations.

Please make a good PC version without the console limitations.

Ashpolt
29th Jul 2010, 09:36
Yeah, I'm sure all of you saw the first videos of Mirror's Edge and immediately said "That's UE3, I know because it looks just like Gears of War."

Art style=/=game engine. Game engine doesn't dictate colors palette, amount of bloom, character models, or anything else. It's 100% art direction.

Seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_3

Alpha Protocol
APB
Batman
Borderlands
DC Universe Online
Fairtyale Fights
Liesure Suit Larry
Lost Odyssey

I'm just going in alphabetical order, but there are a TON of games that use UE3 that you would never even know without being told.

You missed the parts of my post where I said "as a general rule" and "unless some massive effort is put in to stop it doing so." There are exceptions, yes, but as a general rule UE3 games are recognisable as such. Arkham Asylum, for instance, I think is noticeable a UE3 game, same with DC Universe Online. Borderlands doesn't look it, but definitely feels it. Alpha Protocol and APB I admit I didn't know. The other games on your list I don't know much about.

And I'm not saying this as a criticism of, or indeed in any relation to, DX:HR btw. It's obvious from the screenshots we've seen that it looks nothing like TRU.

Vladimyre
29th Jul 2010, 15:47
I firmly place the blame on EM for causing these "rants" due to lack of information and community involvement ESP since Rene is no longer a laison and I don't see it ever getting better.

I am very skeptical about T4 too. I hope they get their PR act together. I'm beginning to think they enjoy the fervour on the boards by not giving information.

Corpus
29th Jul 2010, 15:55
I firmly place the blame on EM for causing these "rants" due to lack of information and community involvement ESP since Rene is no longer a laison and I don't see it ever getting better.

I am very skeptical about T4 too. I hope they get their PR act together. I'm beginning to think they enjoy the fervour on the boards by not giving information.

I agree they should get their PR guy sorted. Blaming them for everyones arguments is a no no.

WildcatPhoenix
29th Jul 2010, 15:59
I firmly place the blame on EM for causing these "rants" due to lack of information and community involvement ESP since Rene is no longer a laison and I don't see it ever getting better.

I am very skeptical about T4 too. I hope they get their PR act together. I'm beginning to think they enjoy the fervour on the boards by not giving information.

The sad part is how much the tone of this board has changed over the past year (myself included). There was a lot of cautious optimism going around after the initial wave of information. We didn't have much to go on, but the original statements from the developers and from Rene had me at least thinking we'd be in for something special.

That's what I think some people don't understand. Most of us wanted to buy into the hype, we wanted this game to be great. We aren't just cranky old men waiting for a diaper change. We love Deus Ex and were genuinely excited about another entry in the franchise.

Since the initial info release, though, it's been nothing but disappointment after disappointment, and the absolute radio silence from EM has left me checking these forums with a mixture of apathy and resignation. Which pretty much sums up my attitude toward the entire game, at this point. :hmm:

Pooeypants
29th Jul 2010, 16:33
You missed the parts of my post where I said "as a general rule" and "unless some massive effort is put in to stop it doing so." There are exceptions, yes, but as a general rule UE3 games are recognisable as such. Arkham Asylum, for instance, I think is noticeable a UE3 game, same with DC Universe Online. Borderlands doesn't look it, but definitely feels it. Alpha Protocol and APB I admit I didn't know. The other games on your list I don't know much about.

And I'm not saying this as a criticism of, or indeed in any relation to, DX:HR btw. It's obvious from the screenshots we've seen that it looks nothing like TRU.Alpha Protocol suffers very poorly from the inherent texture streaming of the UE3 engine. But you're right, unless a lot of effort has been put then I can almost spot a UE3 engine game as soon as I see it in action.

At least I know with this engine we should see FSAA whilst HDR is enabled. This is important because most DX9 games use deferred HDR lighting which is normally incompatible with normal FSAA. Of course in the idea world this game would have DX11 support but given MS (which ironically is in the PC Gaming Alliance...) has been poaching PC games to make them X360 exclusive it's not surprise that this will be DX9 only (version 9.0c was released in Aug 2004...ancient by computer standards!).

Vladimyre
30th Jul 2010, 13:53
The sad part is how much the tone of this board has changed over the past year (myself included). There was a lot of cautious optimism going around after the initial wave of information. We didn't have much to go on, but the original statements from the developers and from Rene had me at least thinking we'd be in for something special.

That's what I think some people don't understand. Most of us wanted to buy into the hype, we wanted this game to be great. We aren't just cranky old men waiting for a diaper change. We love Deus Ex and were genuinely excited about another entry in the franchise.

Since the initial info release, though, it's been nothing but disappointment after disappointment, and the absolute radio silence from EM has left me checking these forums with a mixture of apathy and resignation. Which pretty much sums up my attitude toward the entire game, at this point. :hmm:
Corpus: While the blame can't be leveled completely as some people just love to stir the pot, it would go a LONG way in elimnating MOST ( while igniting other ) complaints but at least there would be COMMUNICATION. It's been the carrot on the stick approach with VERY little carrot and it's teetering on the edge of who the heck cares anymore. Due to the constant letdowns of no information.

WildcatPhoenix: That's exactly what I've been noticing as well. I've starting checking less and less, and the whole tone has gone sour. It almost appears like they are hiding information in an effort not to let down the hardcore fans that have been waiting for information for as long as possible, aka limit bad press due to whining/disappointment. This is of course all speculation but it's what it has been feeling like more and more lately, especially because of the closed door demo's etc. Losing touch with their supporters and fans is never a good thing.

And this example does not bode well for the Thief 4 game, if the PR and interaction is going to be this abyssmal. Like any behavior, the best prediction of future behavior is past behavior.

Not trying to troll, just expressing my frustration thats been growing lately.

jd10013
31st Jul 2010, 14:43
haven't read all 6 pages yet, but judging from this "news", all I can say is....................lol. not surprised in the least.

jd10013
31st Jul 2010, 15:30
That's exactly what I've been noticing as well. I've starting checking less and less, and the whole tone has gone sour. It almost appears like they are hiding information in an effort not to let down the hardcore fans that have been waiting for information for as long as possible, aka limit bad press due to whining/disappointment. This is of course all speculation but it's what it has been feeling like more and more lately, especially because of the closed door demo's etc. Losing touch with their supporters and fans is never a good thing.



it's the bioshock approach. and thats what gets people upset. they were the ones who kept saying how much respect they had for the original, how much they wanted to stay true to it, how they wanted to make a game like it. Just like Levine did with BS. and now, like with BS, is looking more and more like that was just talk, and nothing more than what you described.

now, if they had just come out said from the beginning what this game would be (same with BS), then there wouldn't be these kinds of reactions. people would buy the game, play if for what it was, and either like or dislike it. But instead, they've created this illusion of what the game will be, which will leave a fair chunk of people feeling betrayed, lied to, or mislead.

they should have just been honest from the get-go.

TrickyVein
31st Jul 2010, 15:45
You do realize just how often game designers go through ideas, changing this, tweaking that, right up until release. Right? Otherwise, that's a pretty tall order - and you're pretty naive. ;)

jd10013
31st Jul 2010, 16:12
You do realize just how often game designers go through ideas, changing this, tweaking that, right up until release. Right? Otherwise, that's a pretty tall order - and you're pretty naive. ;)

I think you missed the point. they are the ones who came out praising the original, and talking about how they wanted to make something like it. how they studied that game, played it, and wanted to stay true to it. they (probably purposefully) began generating a lot of buzz about what they were doing, and a lot of anticipation.

then a few months later were told its going to have third person cover. and a couple months later we're told its going to have auto healing. then we're told it's not going to be a pc only title after all, It's going to be on 3 platforms. and then we're told they'll all be the same.

that's hardly changing ideas. and the reason is, What made DX, DX? it wasn't the setting, or the characters, or even the story. sure, they were part of it, but they weren't what made it what it was. what made DX what it was, was that it wasn't an RPG. it wasn't a shooter. it wasn't and action or adventure game. It was all of them. it was a game you could play how you wanted.
It's why IW failed, it stopped being DX in too many ways. the game didn't fail because the maps were too small. the game didn't fail because of the huge fonts. if it had been a great game, people would have overlooked that much as they overlooked the AI, character models, and lack of physics in DX. the game failed because you couldn't play the game the way you wanted because of design choices like universal ammo, removing the sills, making hacking automatic, and so on.

and that's what 3ed person cover, auto heal, cross platform development and so on will do to this game. they won't ruin it, not by any stretch. it will probably be a good, maybe even great game. But it's not going to be a DX game. And they shouldn't have implied that it will be

that's why people are, and will be upset. not because they will think the game was terrible, but because they will not have got the game they thought they were getting. and that is entirely EM's fault.

TrickyVein
31st Jul 2010, 17:48
...distinction without a difference?

Romeo
31st Jul 2010, 23:31
I think you missed the point. they are the ones who came out praising the original, and talking about how they wanted to make something like it. how they studied that game, played it, and wanted to stay true to it. they (probably purposefully) began generating a lot of buzz about what they were doing, and a lot of anticipation.

then a few months later were told its going to have third person cover. and a couple months later we're told its going to have auto healing. then we're told it's not going to be a pc only title after all, It's going to be on 3 platforms. and then we're told they'll all be the same.

that's hardly changing ideas. and the reason is, What made DX, DX? it wasn't the setting, or the characters, or even the story. sure, they were part of it, but they weren't what made it what it was. what made DX what it was, was that it wasn't an RPG. it wasn't a shooter. it wasn't and action or adventure game. It was all of them. it was a game you could play how you wanted.
It's why IW failed, it stopped being DX in too many ways. the game didn't fail because the maps were too small. the game didn't fail because of the huge fonts. if it had been a great game, people would have overlooked that much as they overlooked the AI, character models, and lack of physics in DX. the game failed because you couldn't play the game the way you wanted because of design choices like universal ammo, removing the sills, making hacking automatic, and so on.

and that's what 3ed person cover, auto heal, cross platform development and so on will do to this game. they won't ruin it, not by any stretch. it will probably be a good, maybe even great game. But it's not going to be a DX game. And they shouldn't have implied that it will be

that's why people are, and will be upset. not because they will think the game was terrible, but because they will not have got the game they thought they were getting. and that is entirely EM's fault.
I think you're a little different than some. To most, DX:IW wasn't bad because of the lack of choice, as the things you listed are more gameplay elements than choices.

DX was great for it's story more than anything else, in my opinion. And frankly, that's all that can be, you can't just say what you believe and laud it as fact.

Lastly, while I hate switching perspectives and auto-regeneration, both using cover AND choosing platforms are more choice, not less. You're arguing against your own points.

jd10013
1st Aug 2010, 00:24
I think you're a little different than some. To most, DX:IW wasn't bad because of the lack of choice, as the things you listed are more gameplay elements than choices.

it was the gameplay options that gave you the choices. how you developed your character, and the gameplay choices you made had a lot of impact on how you could play it. it didn't necessarily rule out any particular style of play, but it made it a lot easier, or harder. developing a "shoot em all" type character heavy in weapons skills dindn't make stealth impossible, but it did make it a lot harder. getting much less time from hacking ATM, or computers; needing 3x as many multitools and lockpicks ect; made for a much more challenging than if you had put skill points into hacking/lockpicking ect.



DX was great for it's story more than anything else, in my opinion. And frankly, that's all that can be, you can't just say what you believe and laud it as fact.

fair enough, but I don't think the story was what made the game. it was, IMO, a part of it (as I said) but not the essence of DX. to me, things like skills, complexity, localized damage, hybrid style gameplay (to name a few) were the essence of the game. like being able to shoot a guard in the arm and make him drop his weapon buy upgrading your character a certain way. stuff that you don't find in any old game off the shelf.



Lastly, while I hate switching perspectives and auto-regeneration, both using cover AND choosing platforms are more choice, not less. You're arguing against your own points.

only if those choices are optional. and from what I understand they're not. again, I'm not saying the game is going to be bad. I just don't think it's going to be a "DX" type game. Being a DX game to me is more than just having a character with augmentations involved in a conspiracy. and I think the people who are expecting a DX game are going to be disappointed.

those that simply want a game set in the DX universe will be probably be happy with it.

Romeo
1st Aug 2010, 00:41
it was the gameplay options that gave you the choices. how you developed your character, and the gameplay choices you made had a lot of impact on how you could play it. it didn't necessarily rule out any particular style of play, but it made it a lot easier, or harder. developing a "shoot em all" type character heavy in weapons skills dindn't make stealth impossible, but it did make it a lot harder. getting much less time from hacking ATM, or computers; needing 3x as many multitools and lockpicks ect; made for a much more challenging than if you had put skill points into hacking/lockpicking ect.

That same choice was forced in Deus Ex, you had to select augs that benefitted whatever playstyle you were going to attempt. The errors I found were more problematic from the fact they simply didn't make the game better.


fair enough, but I don't think the story was what made the game. it was, IMO, a part of it (as I said) but not the essence of DX. to me, things like skills, complexity, localized damage, hybrid style gameplay (to name a few) were the essence of the game. stuff that you don't find in any old game off the shelf.

And to each their own, I just personally like the series for it's stories, above all else. Truth be told, I really didn't like the gunplay in Deus Ex.


only if those choices are optional. and from what I understand they're not. again, I'm not saying the game is going to be bad. I just don't think it's going to be a "DX" type game. Being a DX game to me is more than just having a character with augmentations involved in a conspiracy. and I think the people who are expecting a DX game are going to be disappointed.

those that simply want a game set in the DX universe will be probably be happy with it.

And they still are. You have to choose to push yourself into third person, otherwise you can still duck and pop in first-person as normal. And no one has a gun to your head saying you must buy for the console, that's also your call

jd10013
1st Aug 2010, 01:11
And they still are. You have to choose to push yourself into third person, otherwise you can still duck and pop in first-person as normal. And no one has a gun to your head saying you must buy for the console, that's also your call

I own neither an Xbox nor a PS3, so that won't be a problem. :D

Anasumtj
1st Aug 2010, 01:47
Let's see, I can use a tactically advantageous feature that the game was designed around (third-person cover) or I can just gimp myself in stealth.

Yes, you do have an option in the strictest sense of the word. It's also a very silly and meaningless one. Options should have varied, but similarly weighted outcomes. The game is clearly designed to utilize a third-person camera for stealth, and foregoing it is just going to make playing the game more difficult for you.

HR may end up doing many things right, but I don't think the "third-person cover is optional" argument is going to convince anybody. It's not a real choice any more than choosing not to pick up ammo from fallen enemies is, or choosing to play through a game without using the Jump key.

Jerion
1st Aug 2010, 03:18
or choosing to play through a game without using the Jump key.

Is this possible in DX? TIME TO FIND OUT! :nut:

super...
1st Aug 2010, 06:38
Is this possible in DX? TIME TO FIND OUT! :nut:

i think so, if you ever did need it i think you could just use mines to build a stairway

also in response to the general topic, those who are unwilling to open their eyes will never see.

HR may suck, it may end up as the nachos with jalapenos (the ones that are ruling) your half baked options about game design and development are worthless either way.

Fluffis
1st Aug 2010, 11:45
That same choice was forced in Deus Ex, you had to select augs that benefitted whatever playstyle you were going to attempt.


No you didn't. You can play through the game using neither augs nor skills. But if you want to define your playstyle, skills are much more linked to it than augs. Augs just help make the playstyle easier. You are not forced to pick any specific augs to make a character function a certain way.

WildcatPhoenix
1st Aug 2010, 15:00
No you didn't. You can play through the game using neither augs nor skills. But if you want to define your playstyle, skills are much more linked to it than augs. Augs just help make the playstyle easier. You are not forced to pick any specific augs to make a character function a certain way.

Exactly. I don't have to install Cloak or Run Silent to play as a stealth player. I could still sneak around in the shadows, dodge cameras, and avoid enemies altogether without upgrading a single thing. But in that regard, I didn't need to upgrade skills either.

IOOI
1st Aug 2010, 22:53
fair enough, but I don't think the story was what made the game. it was, IMO, a part of it (as I said) but not the essence of DX. to me, things like skills, complexity, localized damage, hybrid style gameplay (to name a few) were the essence of the game. like being able to shoot a guard in the arm and make him drop his weapon buy upgrading your character a certain way. stuff that you don't find in any old game off the shelf.


This and the plot twists made the game for me, though I wasn't aware and didn't have knowledge of all the factions present in the game IRL. But the things jd0013 wrote and the amount of interaction in the game are essential to me. Those were the things that made DX unique at the time and a new title in the series should expand upon this.

Romeo
2nd Aug 2010, 06:15
Let's see, I can use a tactically advantageous feature that the game was designed around (third-person cover) or I can just gimp myself in stealth.

Yes, you do have an option in the strictest sense of the word. It's also a very silly and meaningless one. Options should have varied, but similarly weighted outcomes. The game is clearly designed to utilize a third-person camera for stealth, and foregoing it is just going to make playing the game more difficult for you.

HR may end up doing many things right, but I don't think the "third-person cover is optional" argument is going to convince anybody. It's not a real choice any more than choosing not to pick up ammo from fallen enemies is, or choosing to play through a game without using the Jump key.
It is tactically advantageous, but there's no reason you can't do stealth the same way you did in the original Deus Ex. Yes, it wont be as over-powered as third-person, but that's like saying playing the game with cheats is tactically advantageous: Sure, it is, but you needn't use them.

No you didn't. You can play through the game using neither augs nor skills. But if you want to define your playstyle, skills are much more linked to it than augs. Augs just help make the playstyle easier. You are not forced to pick any specific augs to make a character function a certain way.
Perhaps it was due to the lack of skills, or perhaps just different augs, but I found myself selecting specific augs for specific playstyles in Invisible War, in exactly the same way I selected skills and augs in Deus Ex. I'm not going to go for cloak and silent footsteps if I intend to blow the hell out of everything. Similarly, I'm not going to go for regeneration and defense drone if I intend to hack my way through, or sneak my way through.

WildcatPhoenix
2nd Aug 2010, 12:56
Perhaps it was due to the lack of skills, or perhaps just different augs, but I found myself selecting specific augs for specific playstyles in Invisible War, in exactly the same way I selected skills and augs in Deus Ex. I'm not going to go for cloak and silent footsteps if I intend to blow the hell out of everything. Similarly, I'm not going to go for regeneration and defense drone if I intend to hack my way through, or sneak my way through.

I do, sometimes. If I'm doing a ninja run I rarely carry a GEP gun or LAWs, so I often equip Aggressive Defense to protect from those pesky milbots in Paris and Vandenburg, etc. Or commandos, for that matter. I've never been the type of player to reload if I get spotted (although I have started a "completely silent" playthrough where no alarms could be raised, no enemies alerted....can't lie though, I didn't finish :p).

Regeneration is another one I almost always install, even if I'm not going for the run-and-gun playstyle. I think skills are much more "role-specific." Try hacking toward the end of the game with no skills spent on computer, or picking a door with no lockpicking points spent. It isn't gonna happen.

Fluffis
2nd Aug 2010, 14:19
Perhaps it was due to the lack of skills, or perhaps just different augs, but I found myself selecting specific augs for specific playstyles in Invisible War, in exactly the same way I selected skills and augs in Deus Ex. I'm not going to go for cloak and silent footsteps if I intend to blow the hell out of everything. Similarly, I'm not going to go for regeneration and defense drone if I intend to hack my way through, or sneak my way through.

Regen is the perfect "Oh sh..." aug, so I (almost) always pick it. The Aggressive Defense is perfect as a "pure" stealther (no weapon that makes a lot of noise) - rockets are one of the few things you may have to worry about, in terms of attacks. Using Silent and Cloak (and a silenced AR, or a really big gun) is actually a hell of a lot of fun to use as a run'n'gun. They don't see you coming, and you just leave a pile of corpses. The ultimate hit'n'run.

Romeo
2nd Aug 2010, 17:55
That's a hit and run playthrough. I'm talking busting down every door with shotgun in hand!

As for the playthroughs though, sure, you can do what's counter-productive, but you could do that in the original too, which is something I loved about both games (Yes boys, I got up to those antics too! lol). But as for the focusing, yes, I could pick aggressive defense drone during a stealth playthrough, but I found it much useful to get thermal masking, and although I tried the static discharge one, I still didn't find it quite as useful for stealth as being able to hop-n-skip past robots.

Fluffis
2nd Aug 2010, 19:26
That's a hit and run playthrough. I'm talking busting down every door with shotgun in hand!

As for the playthroughs though, sure, you can do what's counter-productive, but you could do that in the original too, which is something I loved about both games (Yes boys, I got up to those antics too! lol). But as for the focusing, yes, I could pick aggressive defense drone during a stealth playthrough, but I found it much useful to get thermal masking, and although I tried the static discharge one, I still didn't find it quite as useful for stealth as being able to hop-n-skip past robots.


But choosing augs that are not specifically designed for the playstyle is not counter-productive. They just help you in different ways and can, arguably, be at least as effective as the "intended" augs. I mean, one of the most effective ways to do stealth is to use Speed and crouch, simply because Speed has more uses than Silent. It means that you open up areas in a way that Silent can't do, and crouching doesn't take Bio-E, as opposed to Cloak/Thermal.

What it means, in the end, is that Skills are what you use to define your playstyle. Augs are what you use to make it easier.

Anasumtj
2nd Aug 2010, 19:29
It is tactically advantageous, but there's no reason you can't do stealth the same way you did in the original Deus Ex. Yes, it wont be as over-powered as third-person, but that's like saying playing the game with cheats is tactically advantageous: Sure, it is, but you needn't use them.

A cheat is a cheat. Third-person camera is a feature. I'm playing against game rules, not the actual in-game obstacles. It's a very self-conscious playing experience, which isn't how you should play Deus Ex on your first time through. :P

I would have rather EM had chosen a more interesting route for stealth. Leaning is always the obvious one thrown around here, but perhaps some tools or augs that allowed you to see around corners through mirrors or snake-cams, maybe even remotely deployed cameras. There were countless small ways they could have improved the original's stealth formula instead of this straight-up, cover-based system that you're supposed to be using.

Pretentious Old Man.
2nd Aug 2010, 19:31
Indeed. If they included lean controls, third person cover would be a non-issue.

Romeo
2nd Aug 2010, 21:08
A cheat is a cheat. Third-person camera is a feature. I'm playing against game rules, not the actual in-game obstacles. It's a very self-conscious playing experience, which isn't how you should play Deus Ex on your first time through. :P

I would have rather EM had chosen a more interesting route for stealth. Leaning is always the obvious one thrown around here, but perhaps some tools or augs that allowed you to see around corners through mirrors or snake-cams, maybe even remotely deployed cameras. There were countless small ways they could have improved the original's stealth formula instead of this straight-up, cover-based system that you're supposed to be using.
Perfect Dark: Zero had stealth, and was based upon pulling into corners to see around them in third-person. I played that game on Perfect Agent (Hard) and you know how many times I used that view? None. Because you arn't "missing out" on anything by not using it. Yes, it's there if you suck at stealth and common sense. But, if you arn't inept, as you, myself, or pretty much any of the players of Deus Ex are, it shouldn't be too difficult to use stop-and-pop styles of stealth instead.

Pretentious Old Man.
2nd Aug 2010, 23:32
Perfect Dark: Zero had stealth, and was based upon pulling into corners to see around them in third-person. I played that game on Perfect Agent (Hard) and you know how many times I used that view? None. Because you arn't "missing out" on anything by not using it. Yes, it's there if you suck at stealth and common sense. But, if you arn't inept, as you, myself, or pretty much any of the players of Deus Ex are, it shouldn't be too difficult to use stop-and-pop styles of stealth instead.

Very true, but it does become a lot more difficult without lean controls. Crouch-and-lean is pretty much the mainstay of first person stealth. Then again, I'm guessing that PDZ had no lean either, amirite? :cool:

Romeo
3rd Aug 2010, 01:34
Very true, but it does become a lot more difficult without lean controls. Crouch-and-lean is pretty much the mainstay of first person stealth. Then again, I'm guessing that PDZ had no lean either, amirite? :cool:
u r rite.

That being said, I would definitely not object to the inclusion of lean. Eidos, take note. ;)

Anasumtj
3rd Aug 2010, 01:55
Perfect Dark: Zero had stealth, and was based upon pulling into corners to see around them in third-person. I played that game on Perfect Agent (Hard) and you know how many times I used that view? None. Because you arn't "missing out" on anything by not using it. Yes, it's there if you suck at stealth and common sense. But, if you arn't inept, as you, myself, or pretty much any of the players of Deus Ex are, it shouldn't be too difficult to use stop-and-pop styles of stealth instead.

PDZ was also a pretty mediocre game by nearly every standard. I see your point, but that's not the first game I'd go to for a direct comparison.

IIRC stealth was not as big a deal in that game as it is in the Deus Ex series.

singularity
3rd Aug 2010, 03:08
Exactly. I don't have to install Cloak or Run Silent to play as a stealth player. I could still sneak around in the shadows, dodge cameras, and avoid enemies altogether without upgrading a single thing. But in that regard, I didn't need to upgrade skills either.

I actually saw this as a fault in the first game... a huge one. It is very similar to the Fallout 3 model. Don't have thermomptic camo, stealth items or augs? It's OK! You can still use stealth! Don't have skills in electronics? That's fine -- lockpicking is basicly the same thing. No hacking skills? No problem -- you can still access every single part of the game.

All of the "choices" you made about leveling your character, augs installed, using more lock picks, or being a sniper etc ... none of it mattered at all. It all led you to the same place, which is why you could still see 99.9% of the game, without ever dumping points into a single skill, installing a specific aug, etc. I'd much rather have a game that forces you to only see 30% of what is there, based on the choices you've made previously (i.e. to be a better hacker than lockpicker, be more stealth focused than combat focused).

It's got to the point for me, around my 3rd playthrough, the game became pointless, unless I just wanted to experiment. All the "choices" you make have hardly any consequences.

Don't get me wrong -- I still want a game I can play as I choose, but just like in real life, I want there to be consequenses and rewards for the choices I make (which has never been a key point in DX)

Romeo
3rd Aug 2010, 04:06
Yeah, I'm with you on that one, Singularity, I want more consequences for my choices. If I go balls out firepower, don't let me lockpick my way through everything.

But on the topic of that, I'd like to see something out of combat for gun skills. Maybe, something in a few conversations or something where a gun skill could allow for something unique.

Fluffis
3rd Aug 2010, 04:23
I actually saw this as a fault in the first game... a huge one. It is very similar to the Fallout 3 model. Don't have thermomptic camo, stealth items or augs? It's OK! You can still use stealth!


This, I see as realism. Those items just make it easier to remain hidden.



Don't have skills in electronics? That's fine -- lockpicking is basicly the same thing.


Eh... no? But this is more a matter of resource management. Increased skills in either ensures that there is less risk of you running out.



No hacking skills? No problem -- you can still access every single part of the game.


Yes, but you'll be having more trouble getting access to certain information, and having to waste more resources (and time).



All of the "choices" you made about leveling your character, augs installed, using more lock picks, or being a sniper etc ... none of it mattered at all. It all led you to the same place, which is why you could still see 99.9% of the game, without ever dumping points into a single skill, installing a specific aug, etc. I'd much rather have a game that forces you to only see 30% of what is there, based on the choices you've made previously (i.e. to be a better hacker than lockpicker, be more stealth focused than combat focused).

It's got to the point for me, around my 3rd playthrough, the game became pointless, unless I just wanted to experiment.


And I come back to one of my favourite sentences: That's not really a flaw (or fault) in the game. It depends on your perception of how a game like this should be.

Most of those choices have to do with your tactics. Which playstyle that suits you best. I think there's definitely something redeeming in making a game where you have the possibility to experience it all, and you are free to get there in whatever way you like. And for a game as massive as DX, which fits onto one CD, I think they did pretty well.



All the "choices" you make have hardly any consequences.

Don't get me wrong -- I still want a game I can play as I choose, but just like in real life, I want there to be consequenses and rewards for the choices I make (which has never been a key point in DX)

Making sure your brother lives or dies? (Granted, there should have been more of a consequence.)
Getting info or upgrade depending on what you tell Jaime to do?
Killing Anna (and getting more background info from Lebedev), or having her block you at a later stage?
Killing Simons or not?
Distrusting the gatekeeper in Paris, and avoiding a sticky situation while trying to escape?
Trusting Maggie Chow or not (avoiding a possible commotion at the police station)?
And, of course, the way the game ends.

I'd say there are some choices with consequences in DX. And like I wrote earlier: for a game as massive as DX, which fits onto one CD, I think they did pretty well.

Mindmute
3rd Aug 2010, 10:29
I'd say there are some choices with consequences in DX. And like I wrote earlier: for a game as massive as DX, which fits onto one CD, I think they did pretty well.

Don't hold your breath for a discussion.. A couple of weeks ago he said that same thing, I quoted and repplied and got no answer back leaving me in the dark about where he's coming from that statement.
It's frustrating when people just say things as fact and then bugger off at the slightest hint of discussion.

Romeo
4th Aug 2010, 02:32
don't hold your breath for a discussion.. A couple of weeks ago he said the thing, i quoted and repplied and got no answer back leaving me in the dark about where he's coming from that statement.
It's frustrating when people just say things as fact and then bugger off at the slightest hint of discussion.
YO, IMMA LET YOU FINISH IN JUST A SECOND, BUT BEYONCE'S VIDEO WAS THE VIDEO OF ALL TIME. ALL TIME.

lol

;)

Pretentious Old Man.
5th Aug 2010, 18:51
YO, IMMA LET YOU FINISH IN JUST A SECOND, BUT BEYONCE'S VIDEO WAS THE VIDEO OF ALL TIME. ALL TIME.

lol

;)

http://www.prothemer.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/broken-internet.jpg

Kodaemon
5th Aug 2010, 19:12
[broken internets pic]

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/1664/romanticallyapocalyptic.jpg

Sorry for the huge pic, but I just had to.

Pretentious Old Man.
5th Aug 2010, 19:39
Sorry for the huge pic, but I just had to.


http://gfx.gaminator.pl/data/character/18/18.3.jpg


This is my standard pic-war picture. It pwns all.

(Very funny cartoon by the way)

Kodaemon
5th Aug 2010, 19:48
I recommend the entire webcomic. Also, the world is small indeed: the author, Alexius, worked on a Thief 2 campaign for quite some time.

And Tri-Optimum pwns indeed.

Pretentious Old Man.
5th Aug 2010, 20:01
I recommend the entire webcomic. Also, the world is small indeed: the author, Alexius, worked on a Thief 2 campaign for quite some time.

And Tri-Optimum pwns indeed.

Indeed it does... rest in peace System Shock. Ever shall we play Portal to recapture the memory of your epic win...

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
6th Aug 2010, 19:44
they'd damn well better make it playable without a gamepad on PC

I accidentally read that as with a gamepad. :rasp:

I don't get you. Deus Ex 2 was a console game disguised as a PC game and it was still remarkably good. Same with Thief DS.

Ashpolt
6th Aug 2010, 20:05
I don't get you. Deus Ex 2 was a console game disguised as a PC game and it was still remarkably good. Same with Thief DS.

This....this is trolling, right? Right?

JCpies
6th Aug 2010, 20:16
they'd damn well better make it playable without a gamepad on PC

What's a game pad?

jtr7
7th Aug 2010, 00:21
This....this is trolling, right? Right?

Yes. It's his primary contribution to the forums.

Romeo
7th Aug 2010, 00:54
What's a game pad?
Imagine if you could take all the complexity of a keyboard, and shrink it into a tiny unit of a few buttons and thumbsticks and make it all work perfectly.

Now forget that dream and imagine a hard-to-use tiny unit of a few buttons and thumbsticks.

Yes. It's his primary contribution to the forums.
'Aye, seems to be these days.

jd10013
7th Aug 2010, 01:26
Yeah, I'm with you on that one, Singularity, I want more consequences for my choices. If I go balls out firepower, don't let me lockpick my way through everything.

But on the topic of that, I'd like to see something out of combat for gun skills. Maybe, something in a few conversations or something where a gun skill could allow for something unique.

it's not quite as easy as you make it sound. If you built your character for combat, in order to "lockpick" your way through everything you needed to explore every inch of every map and scour it for every possible lockpick you could find. it took quite a bit more picks without skill point invested, and was even more so when it came to multi-tools. Multi-tooling your way through with a guns blazing character was more challenging.

No, it wasn't a perfect system, but that ties in perfectly with the disappointment in IW, and the fear of further disappointment with DX3. what people really want in any sequel is an expansion of the "play as you want" concept. the whole emergent gameplay thing. but when instead we get the removal of such critical things as skills, we know were not getting a real sequel. just another augmented conspiracy adventure.

Laokin
7th Aug 2010, 13:37
Oh come on, of course you will be able to use a keyboard+mouse combo on PC, but gameplay will undoubtedly feel gimped.

Also, I expect HUGE FONTS YOU CAN SEE FROM YOUR COUCH.

What no. I get the impression nobody read the article. They specifically stated the pc version is NOT a port. That they were all just being built at the same time.


"I used to work on previous games where we had lead platforms, and when we were close to the release date, we had to do a port," he added. "And believe me, you don’t want to do that."

What they mean is they will all feature the same content. The console versions won't be missing sections, or feature sections that were shrunk like Doom 3 did on the OG Xbox. This is largely because the current gen consoles can handle what previous gen consoles couldn't.

Furthermore, Computer Monitors for consumer entertainment are more than on their way out. Every TV on the market has HDMI and/or VGA/DVi inputs.

Take my setup for example.

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2537/0807100927.jpg (http://img443.imageshack.us/i/0807100927.jpg/)

On top of this I personally know 6 people in my group of friends that also are set up like this with more saving to make the plunge.

I have a 37" and a 42"(42" is pictured above) for 2 different computers. 2 of my friends have a 47", another buddy with a 40" and another buddy with a 42 as well and the other few I'm not certain about the size, I'd guess 30" and 60" or around those respected sizes. Oh and I forgot my own father, who has the very same Vizio 42" that I have, setup in his room in a very similar configuration, his being VGA, mine being HDMI.

I am not rich, it was not a gift -- I bought it on my own for $888. If that is unaffordable for anybody it's simply because you manage your money poorly. I was only making $8.50 an hour at the time -- So I don't even want to hear any "you're lucky" or "spoiled" comments. It was not a gift, and there was no luck involved.

For anybody saying that it won't meet their needs, it's 1920x1080 native 120hz, 42" in size a contrast ratio that is just amazing, and super bright with a response time under 8ms. What more could you want? Surely the 42" in size makes up for insane resolutions above 1920x1080, hardly a system that can run next gen games higher than that anyhow.

Not only this, but I have my Satellite hooked up to it as well, so when I wanna watch TV I can put my PC in PIP and watch and browse at the same time. Or when I wish to lay down and watch a movie, my bed is perfectly inline with it, and I just rotate and push that chair to the wall for a clean unobstructed view of what ever movie I choose to watch.

It's also convenient if you are a movie downloader, as you don't have to burn it or cleverly figure a way to get the file to play on your TV, you just full screen VLC and you're good to go.

Oh and P.S. I don't sit far away, I sit right there. It's actually better for your eyes, there is no strain and no radiation with LCD televisions. And if I CHOSE to, I could lay in my own bed hookup my Xbox360 wireless controller and game from far away with ease. So really, it's more comfortable than the couch setup and offers more choices to the end user on how they wish to use their entertainment.

And furthermore, with the push into the 3d markets with nVidia 3D vision, and ATi's partnership with that 3rd party 3D company coupled with the extremely lacking market of 3D computer monitors and the rise of 3D televisions (Incorporated into almost every 2010 model TV) -- It would seem that the industry is pushing us in this direction.

I get 3D vision, choice, comfort, and less eye strain as well as a more immersible experience, all for two weeks of intelligent saving.

In short TV's > Monitors for consumer entertainment. Monitors > TV's for professional use.

Get with the times yo.

P.S.S.

I can get pictures for all the setups if some one thinks I'm full of it.

P.S.S.S.

Dell has a line of gaming computers with the sole intent of being as easily hooked up as an XBox360 to a TV.

And even the ******* Bobby Kotick from Actisuck proclaims that this is the future. About the only thing he's right about TBH.

Pooeypants
7th Aug 2010, 14:28
Mate, don't get ahead of yourself, the vast majority of gamings are still using smaller TFTs, many not even widescreen!

Check out Steam's hardware survey (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/), don't think there's a more representative set of data anywhere else but you're free to critique it.

Also, the industry is pushing too hard too soon. Full HD is still only slowly making its way into people's homes. Let's bear in mind that if you're not in the US, and in the UK for example, you'll be paying 30% more for the same TV. Remember also that the recession is barely over...

Laokin
7th Aug 2010, 14:42
I didn't say that everyone had one, or that the average gamer has one. People who use TFT non widescreen monitors are people who clearly don't upgrade, which means they are most likely casual gamers.

People with wide screen monitors, are people making ill informed choices not realizing that PC's work flawlessly on TV's, or are content with what they are using and have had that monitor for a while already and don't see a reason to upgrade. But when it's time, I suggest the TV route for reasons stated above. If you live in the UK you may or may not have to pay 30% extra, but even if you do -- your currency is worth more -- so it's almost a moot point.

All I said was it's the future, and more and more people have them. They are not hard to come by, so when you need that new monitor, get a TV instead.

It was meant to be informative, not elitist. I was just trying to cover all possible angles of flame to nip it in the bud. I can't really think of one negative of going the HDTV route unless you are an artist that needs 2600xXXXX resolutions.

Also, I am aware other countries aren't like my own, but my own is very large and a huge target for income from these industries. Most of the AAA content is made in this continent with a primary audience of American teens. Regardless, we are a big enough %age to cater to so I was trying to inform the many that we do exist and are getting quite common place so If developers keep us in mind, it's not necessarily a notion of consolitus.

Blizzard knows this, Warcraft 3 had DPi settings for font in case you had a bigger screen so High Resolutions didn't shrink the font down to eye straining levels. This process is now automated and scales to an appropriate size in most titles based on resolution.

Oh and really? nVidia has 60% of the market??????? This statistic alone proves that the valve survey is just that, a valve survey. 60% of steam users maybe, but 60% of all pc owners? Hardly -- ATi would be out of business. They also have most used OS as XP, but it's important to note that XP sits at a total of 33.29% Whilst Windows 7 sits at 45.15%

Shouldn't they include total percentage instead of forcing a split between 64 and 32 bit, to show how more people actually use Windows 7? It's quite misleading.

Oh and according to the Steam Survey 60.44% of all people on steam use HD resolutions, not likely of a 4:3 TFT like you stated. Also, your vast majority is 30%, it's actually a minority, since the vast majority is using resolutions above HD outside of the 4:3 ratio.

Isn't this thread clear evidence that people don't comprehend what they read, because that article was good news for PC, not bad, just like the steam survey you present me with as a counter argument is actually wrong and supports the fact that most users do NOT have a 4:3 old school TFT monitor.

Pooeypants
7th Aug 2010, 14:44
I didn't say that everyone had one, or that the average gamer has one. People who use TFT non widescreen monitors are people who clearly don't upgrade, which means they are most likely casual gamers.Some people can't afford to upgrade or simply prefer to use small monitors.


People with wide screen monitors, are people making ill informed choices not realizing that PC's work flawlessly on TV's. If you live in the UK you may or may not have to pay 30% extra, but even if you do -- your currency is worth more -- so it's a moot point.I don't think you understand, I'm obviously comparing the prices after the exchange rate conversation so my point still stands. For example, tell me what model you 37 and 40in tv & their prices, I'll quote to the near model what the average price in UK is.

All I said was it's the future, and more and more people have them. They are not hard to come by, so when you need that new monitor, get a TV instead.

It was meant to be informative, not elitist.As I said, the prices in the US make it very plausible but outside in Europe you'll find it a different story.

Laokin
7th Aug 2010, 15:39
Some people can't afford to upgrade or simply prefer to use small monitors.
I don't think you understand, I'm obviously comparing the prices after the exchange rate conversation so my point still stands. For example, tell me what model you 37 and 40in tv & their prices, I'll quote to the near model what the average price in UK is.
As I said, the prices in the US make it very plausible but outside in Europe you'll find it a different story.

You're missing my point. My point isn't that more people in the world have my setup, it's that the industry targets America boldly. American's make up a decent percent of gamer population, so it's completely viable to cater to the strengths of this market, I'll go a step further and proclaim it should be expected.

Basically in simple terms, you propose the industry cater to the people who want to avoid upgrading and that new games shouldn't take advantage of new technologies, which in turn would stifle innovation which is no good for anybody.

Somebody has to be the early adopter and set the standard, and I was pointing out that clearly they are targeting our market as evident by business decisions and new technology marketing.

I don't quite understand what you are arguing -- as it seems like a "well, other people don't have that, so you shouldn't either" argument. Which is a bit self-centered, as well as arrogant.

I don't see how if you prefer to use a smaller monitor you are being punished? They clearly said the game is being designed specifically for all 3 consoles and that none are ports, but side by side development. So why would PC get large fonts on small displays? That correlation is imaginary.

Oh and there was nothing obvious about your 30% figure. 30% more than US states 30% more than US, not 30% more than the localized MSRP. You ever get one of those problems on a reading exam..... you know the ones with the bubble answers and for some reason the answer is always the bubble that says "Not enough information." I'm gonna have to go ahead and pencil in bubble D. on the obviousness of your conversion.

Romeo
8th Aug 2010, 05:58
I hope we don't switch over to TVs man... Have you seen the ridiculous resolutions we get on monitors? It's gnarley... Can only see the pixels on my laptop if I like put my eye half an inch away (That's ninety-two metres, for you metric folk. I think. Close enough. lol) My TV I can see them from about three feet away (Four kilometres, if I'm not mistaken). =P

Kodaemon
8th Aug 2010, 06:47
I don't see how if you prefer to use a smaller monitor you are being punished? They clearly said the game is being designed specifically for all 3 consoles and that none are ports, but side by side development. So why would PC get large fonts on small displays? That correlation is imaginary.

Giant fonts in console games have nothing to do with screen size, they're caused by two things:
1. console games are usually played sitting further from the screen (the infamous couch)
2. developers still have to factor for people playing on old, low res TVs.

jtr7
8th Aug 2010, 07:14
And in living rooms with living room lighting.

Shralla
8th Aug 2010, 07:17
Oh and really? nVidia has 60% of the market??????? This statistic alone proves that the valve survey is just that, a valve survey. 60% of steam users maybe, but 60% of all pc owners? Hardly -- ATi would be out of business.

Uh... Last I checked, 40% market share is still a ****LOAD. Not to mention they make the GPUs for two of the three consoles.

Everybody knows nVidia hs a bigger market share than ATI. That doesn't mean ATI is going to be "out of business" unless they're dead even.

Pretentious Old Man.
8th Aug 2010, 12:02
There are myriad reasons to stay with monitors (and even 4:3 monitors) beyond simply being a casual gamer.

For one thing, health. Some people who game (like me) have knackered their eyes from 49 years of abuse. A smaller (think monitor sized) area is much kinder on the eyes than a big TV, in fact many Doctors say 17-19 inch 4:3 is the optimum for not taking damage to the eye.

Secondly, running a PC setup, a smaller monitor can be a great way to turn down resolutions and get a better framerate vs quality ratio. The way I've kept my 2008 computer running up to the mark today is to get a 17" monitor. I often game competitively, and not only is it better for the eyes to have a smaller monitor, it means you can still run pretty much any game at maximum video settings. I've not detected any major difference between 1280x1024 vs the higher resolutions available, save that you get a larger viewing area with the higher resolutions (which I don't feel I want or need).

Plus, of course, there is the older game factor. Older games do not respond well to widescreen setups, and since I like to play games made in the last decade, I still keep my old monitor. I do have a widescreen monitor that I tried to get into, but I still prefer my old one, so my son uses the widescreen.

Also, for an example of what happens to a consolised UI (specifically fonts), check out my favourite bette noir:

Morrowind:
http://sites.google.com/site/damicat/morrowind.jpg

Oblivion:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Standard_inventory_interface%2C_Oblivion_2006-12-27.jpg

HUGE FONTS THAT YOU CAN READ FROM YOUR SOFA

Romeo
8th Aug 2010, 19:54
I don't even understand why consoles are using ridiculous font sizes. I could read Morrowind just fine from a few feet back even back on my old 20" tube top just as well as about a foot back from my 17" monitor (I had it for PC and console, 'cause, you know, I was awesome). All the super fonts manage to do is take up more space, especially since I have a big-ish screen for my TV now.

Pretentious Old Man.
9th Aug 2010, 13:59
I don't even understand why consoles are using ridiculous font sizes. I could read Morrowind just fine from a few feet back even back on my old 20" tube top just as well as about a foot back from my 17" monitor (I had it for PC and console, 'cause, you know, I was awesome). All the super fonts manage to do is take up more space, especially since I have a big-ish screen for my TV now.

Developers think that console players are half-blind retards, and PC players don't exist.

At least, that's my impression. See Bob Kotick.

Corpus
9th Aug 2010, 14:44
Developers think that console players are half-blind retards, and PC players don't exist.

At least, that's my impression. See Bob Kotick.

Only game I had slight font problems with was dead rising but even then I just adjusted some settings on my TV and they were fine. The only time font is a problem is when the style is impossible to read.

Shouldn't have to worry about Kotick for too long :)

Pretentious Old Man.
9th Aug 2010, 15:12
Only game I had slight font problems with was dead rising but even then I just adjusted some settings on my TV and they were fine. The only time font is a problem is when the style is impossible to read.

Shouldn't have to worry about Kotick for too long :)

Why, you plan on taking him out? If so, may I be involved? :wave:

Jerion
9th Aug 2010, 16:41
Developers think that console players are half-blind retards, and PC players don't exist.

At least, that's my impression. See Bob Kotick.

Ahem, let me edit that for you!

"Developers think that console players are half-blind retards, and Activision thinks the PC is just a more expensive console."

singularity
10th Aug 2010, 00:43
Don't hold your breath for a discussion.. A couple of weeks ago he said that same thing, I quoted and repplied and got no answer back leaving me in the dark about where he's coming from that statement.
It's frustrating when people just say things as fact and then bugger off at the slightest hint of discussion.

I am sorry about that - as someone who used to come on every day, with the lack of updates, I'm usually only here once a week. Usually by the time I check and see someone else's responses to a post of mine, it is lost in the crowd.


This, I see as realism. Those items just make it easier to remain hidden.


Eh... no? But this is more a matter of resource management. Increased skills in either ensures that there is less risk of you running out.

Yes, but you'll be having more trouble getting access to certain information, and having to waste more resources (and time).

And I come back to one of my favourite sentences: That's not really a flaw (or fault) in the game. It depends on your perception of how a game like this should be.

Most of those choices have to do with your tactics. Which playstyle that suits you best. I think there's definitely something redeeming in making a game where you have the possibility to experience it all, and you are free to get there in whatever way you like. And for a game as massive as DX, which fits onto one CD, I think they did pretty well.

Making sure your brother lives or dies? (Granted, there should have been more of a consequence.)
Getting info or upgrade depending on what you tell Jaime to do?
Killing Anna (and getting more background info from Lebedev), or having her block you at a later stage?
Killing Simons or not?
Distrusting the gatekeeper in Paris, and avoiding a sticky situation while trying to escape?
Trusting Maggie Chow or not (avoiding a possible commotion at the police station)?
And, of course, the way the game ends.

I'd say there are some choices with consequences in DX. And like I wrote earlier: for a game as massive as DX, which fits onto one CD, I think they did pretty well.



As to the topic of there being no real consequences in DX (which is off topic, regardless), I can see where you come from in regards to Anna, Jamie, Jock, etc... but let's be honest, there are no real consequences in any of those situations. If you let Paul die, it's not like there are entire portions of the game you don't get to see or info you really miss out on. As for Anna? Again -- you don't miss out on anything -- you simply get info (and your "boss fight") at a later time.

DX, like Fallout 3, is characterized by moments like this. Yes -- it allows you to play however you want, which is great, but there is hardly any incentive to play it more than twice (three times is really pushing it). As soon as you figure out that if you let Paul live or die, all you get is a few extra lines of dialogue, it looses a ton of it's magic and emotional appeal. Jock dying is... well... nothing. Fighting Anna at a later time -- what do you gain or loose with that? And the ending of the game is nothing more than a choice of what cinematic/ end scene you want to see. The Paris Gatekeeper and the like are really nothing more than "how many enemies would you like to fight?" But in the end, my qualm doesn't lie in these little "choose your own adventure" scenarios through the game -- it is in actual gameplay.

You can still have a game like DX, where you can play however you want -- but I still want there to be consequences to "how you want to play". If, in reality, I want to take a plane trip to a country where I don't know the language, and decide to bring nothing with me and not book a return flight, that is my choice... but there are consequences for it. If I decide to become a master lock picker in DX and not dump a single skill into electronics, that fine -- but when nearly every building has a lockpick way, electronics way and sneaking way of getting through, it doesn't matter at all -- it's like leveling up a character in an RPG that has scaling enemies -- the points you dump into skills don't actually matter, they just give you the ILLUSION of progress.

Rather than have 2 buildings that you can enter 8 different ways, I'd rather have 14 smaller buildings, and each one can only be entered 2 or 3 different ways. I'd like it that if Paul dies, I go to Shanghai, if he lives I go to Russia(and I would happily support a game that is shorter in running time to accomidate this). See where I'm going?
Instead in DX, we all get the same experience -- I just shoot more often than you do, and you use more lock picks than that guy, who might sneak more than most.

You see, I would love to play through an 8-12 hour game, thouroughly, look at the statistics screen when done for the first time, and see that I only completed 27% of all side quests. And it wasn't because I was inept, or didn't explore, or my character wasn't a badass -- but simply because the character I built could access 27% of what the world had to offer.
Just like in real life -- as someone who chose a career in the military, there is plenty I can do with firearms, repairing vehicles, etc. In school, I never studied agriculture, and know nothing about farming. It's not to say that I couldn't have been a farmer, but rather I simply chose a path in life. Both paths would have likely made me physically fit, and given me a decent understanding of mechanics, but the one I choose specificly means that I can't keep a house plant alive to save my life, but could easily hit a human sized target from 400M with an M16.

In my opinion, I'd rather play a game where I couldn't be a surgeon, master lockpicker, hacker, super soldier, conversationalist, gun smith, electrition, master diver, sniper and demolition's expert all in one.

Romeo
10th Aug 2010, 01:14
I'm not going to quote it (As it is lengthy and will only highlight the shortness of my answer) but I'm 100% with you Singularity, it was somewhat dissappointing how many of your decisions still had the same outcome, or at least, barely noticable outcome.

Invictus Sol
10th Aug 2010, 05:25
Great post, Singularity. 100% agreed. Hopefully some version of what you've outlined here will be the next generation of RPG/hybrids, after the industry has gotten every last dollar off the current model.

Pretentious Old Man.
10th Aug 2010, 13:20
You can still have a game like DX, where you can play however you want -- but I still want there to be consequences to "how you want to play". If, in reality, I want to take a plane trip to a country where I don't know the language, and decide to bring nothing with me and not book a return flight, that is my choice... but there are consequences for it. If I decide to become a master lock picker in DX and not dump a single skill into electronics, that fine -- but when nearly every building has a lockpick way, electronics way and sneaking way of getting through, it doesn't matter at all -- it's like leveling up a character in an RPG that has scaling enemies -- the points you dump into skills don't actually matter, they just give you the ILLUSION of progress.

127% Agreed.

Nyysjan
10th Aug 2010, 13:43
127% Agreed.

Well i don't, not 127% atleast, having multiple paths to single objective is a choice, one way might be harder than others, one might be faster, and one might get you better loot and one might give some nice background info or a useless but awesome doodad.

Wich isn't to say that sometimes you might not be forced to take a single path, and then be penaliced, or rewarded, if you have put your skillpoints in right places (it might get harder/easier, faster/slower, give more/less rewards or let you listen to conversations/cutscenes you might otherwise miss).

Senka
11th Aug 2010, 01:55
I'd like it that if Paul dies, I go to Shanghai, if he lives I go to Russia(and I would happily support a game that is shorter in running time to accomidate this). See where I'm going?

I'd be happy for a compromise, where say if Paul dies you go to shanghai first, then visit the levels you would skip to later if he had lived. If the city is in hubs then perhaps in one scenario you only visit parts of Russia. Extra missions can be shoved in along the way too.

pringlepower
11th Aug 2010, 01:57
I'd be happy for a compromise, where say if Paul dies you go to shanghai first, then visit the levels you would skip to later if he had lived. If the city is in hubs then perhaps in one scenario you only visit parts of Russia. Extra missions can be shoved in along the way too.

Well the main problem there is that that makes no sense at all. What does Paul have to do with travel. This is a cool concept, but it really does need to be well-implememented.

Isterio
11th Aug 2010, 03:28
You see, I would love to play through an 8-12 hour game, thouroughly, look at the statistics screen when done for the first time, and see that I only completed 27% of all side quests. And it wasn't because I was inept, or didn't explore, or my character wasn't a badass -- but simply because the character I built could access 27% of what the world had to offer.


I don't like games, which only take 8-12 hours to finish them. Even though you are suggesting that you could play the game in 4 completely different ways. I usually don't like to play the "badass"-ways.

So i would prefer, if you had a game of around 40 hours game time (main plot) and another 40-80 hours for side-quests and exploring. For variation they could have 3 stages in the main plot, where you could implement consequences. Silimar like in the Witcher maybe (but even more)?

I know that this might sound unrealistic, but it's what I want. I stopped buying games with 8 hours playtime. Such a waste of money! No more ego-shooters and adventures.



In my opinion, I'd rather play a game where I couldn't be a surgeon, master lockpicker, hacker, super soldier, conversationalist, gun smith, electrition, master diver, sniper and demolition's expert all in one.

Agreed. It's more fun, if you can really make a specialized character. I usually take a thief like conversationalist (maybe with some close combat skills in combination with sneeking).

Cronstintein
12th Aug 2010, 22:28
It's hard to sell to publishers/developers but I agree that LARGE consequences are more interesting although I do appreciate small touches as well.

Romeo
13th Aug 2010, 05:00
I don't like games, which only take 8-12 hours to finish them. Even though you are suggesting that you could play the game in 4 completely different ways. I usually don't like to play the "badass"-ways.

So i would prefer, if you had a game of around 40 hours game time (main plot) and another 40-80 hours for side-quests and exploring. For variation they could have 3 stages in the main plot, where you could implement consequences. Silimar like in the Witcher maybe (but even more)?

I know that this might sound unrealistic, but it's what I want. I stopped buying games with 8 hours playtime. Such a waste of money! No more ego-shooters and adventures.



Agreed. It's more fun, if you can really make a specialized character. I usually take a thief like conversationalist (maybe with some close combat skills in combination with sneeking).
Nor do I, but I have still played through ME2 four times now, and that includes DLC. Now, the process has obviously been enjoyable to a degree, or I'd not have done it, but were there far-reaches consequences to my choices, I'd be intrigued even further. And while I do want a long single-player, 8-12 applies to someone specifically setting out to do nothing but beat the game, not sidequests and exploration. Hence why Oblivion is labelled as a 20-hour game, despite the fact one can easily pour a hundred hours into it.

minus0ne
13th Aug 2010, 11:52
"I used to work on previous games where we had lead platforms, and when we were close to the release date, we had to do a port," he added. "And believe me, you don’t want to do that."

What a pathetic excuse. Translation: we wouldn't know how to make a PC game if our quarterly profits depended on it, so we're not even going to try.

Delever
13th Aug 2010, 13:16
"I used to work on previous games where we had lead platforms, and when we were close to the release date, we had to do a port," he added. "And believe me, you don’t want to do that."

What a pathetic excuse. Translation: we wouldn't know how to make a PC game if our quarterly profits depended on it, so we're not even going to try.

Or, you have nil understanding of software engineering :)

Pretentious Old Man.
13th Aug 2010, 15:58
Or, you have nil understanding of software engineering :)

Actually he's not far off. Xboxes and Playstations basically are PCs. Making a PC the lead platform is not the same thing as making one of the other two the lead.

Freddo
13th Aug 2010, 20:04
singularity, ever played the Way of the Samurai series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_the_Samurai_3)? The games are very short, but very open and branching with lots of different endings depending on how you play it. Sounds like something you would like.

The consequences in Deus Ex were indeed minor, but in many ways I still feel they were enough, and don't really mind if Deus Ex continues in the same direction.

free2game
13th Aug 2010, 20:34
Actually he's not far off. Xboxes and Playstations basically are PCs. Making a PC the lead platform is not the same thing as making one of the other two the lead.Yes, basically PCs that have 256MB of memory, compared to your average PC today have 2-4GB. That's a massive difference.

pringlepower
13th Aug 2010, 20:42
Yes, basically PCs that have 256MB of memory, compared to your average PC today have 2-4GB. That's a massive difference.

You know they've built supercomputers by linking PS3s? Those things can compute they can.

Delever
13th Aug 2010, 21:32
Actually he's not far off. Xboxes and Playstations basically are PCs. Making a PC the lead platform is not the same thing as making one of the other two the lead.

No, writing code for all, testing it on all at the same time is predictable. Finishing the game on single platform (including all testing) and then porting may require rewriting and redesigning unknown amounts of code and content, which will require unknown amounts of testing.

At least I hope that "creating it for all at once" means creating and testing tailored mechanics and interface for every platform at once. Well, really, you can not run same binary executable on xbox, ps3 and pc, but you can have source code that is the same for all of them, and content that works on all of them.

And PS3 is very different from usual PC.

Romeo
14th Aug 2010, 06:22
Actually he's not far off. Xboxes and Playstations basically are PCs. Making a PC the lead platform is not the same thing as making one of the other two the lead.
Yes and no. My experience is limited to XNA studies (Only for wee little indie games, not multi-million dollar games) but even in that it shows off how something that would work great on console wont translate well to PC, or how something that requires the extra complexity of a keyboard wont function properly when button-choice is limited (Console).

trinsic
18th Aug 2010, 06:51
Rule 30: A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.

Great quote, made me think about trust, and not to over use it.

Gordon_Shea
18th Aug 2010, 09:47
The thing is, I can't really see this game having an interface that's as text or window intensive as, say, an oblivion. The most text-heavy screen in the original DX was the goals/notes screen with the hacking screen as a close second. Other screens (Inventory, the Actual Game), focusing more on visual representation rather than text-heaviness or menus. We've already seen the hacking screen and it looks satisfyingly derivative and PC-friendly, and I can't help but think that the equivalent of the Goals/Notes screen will use audio logs heavily and text-based notes sparsely, if indeed it has notes at all!

Although I don't really have much of a stake in it since I use a DVI-to-HDMI adapter to game on my TV so what the hell do I care? :rasp:

Khaeru
22nd Aug 2010, 10:27
PC gaming is expensive. You don't have to be a casual gamer to not want to chip out a couple hundred every few years for a new gfx card, while you can buy a console once, and have it last several years.

a 9600 gt graphic card can play all games out there smoothly (not at max resolution of course, it's an old card) and if you don't believe me.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJhS3h1uU4w&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDwExpj7A2w .Since computer technology is not evolving so fast now is the best time to buy a pc for 2 strong reasons:

-You buy it once, and you change 1 component when you really need to. Also, online shops offer good deals->


Processore - AMD Phenom II X4 955 3.2Ghz
Scheda madre - ASROCK AM3 890GM Pro3
Ram - 4GB CORSAIR XMS3 CL9 DDR3 1333Mhz
Scheda video - ATI Sapphire Radeon HD5770 Vapor-x
Hard Disk - SEAGATE Barracuda 500GB 7200rpm SATA II
Alimentatore - COOLER MASTER SILENT PRO M500 500W
Case - COOLER MASTER Gladiator 600
Sub-Totale 589,50€

Il resto comprende masterizzatore, scheda di rete e spedizione, per un totale di 640€

http://www.prokoo.com , don't know if it's avaiable out of EU. Btw i can play this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ8Ow98FleU&feature=related and so all other games at max;

-pc gaming is not dead, DD is going on quite well and Steam sells good games for cheap. Also last 2 years f2p games like Vindictus, Battery,Huxley, Hessian, Dizzel are promising and the net is full of billions of cool free 2 play games. It's not like you have to pay 70 euros/dollars for each game, right? Infact, f2p games have earn-credits systems for free, so if you don't want to pay you simply dont, and that's all.


back on topic, this is sad. I think i'll ask someone to lend me the game at this point.
Sry for my english btw

Delever
22nd Aug 2010, 15:30
Yeah, I expect to play Deus Ex : HR on 9600 GT card. Assassins Creed II woks fine on highest settings, so I am not too worried. And this card is cheap as mushroom indeed.

Dr_Bob
23rd Aug 2010, 17:22
Ergh, EIDOS better not do to DX:HR that BioWare did to Mass Effect 2.

Mass Effect 1 was specifically redone on the PC platform so that PC users could enjoy tons of flexibility. You could use WASD to cycle through menus (W and S acted as UP and DOWN so you didn't have to use the mouse). E acted as a Left-Click and/or acted as a mechanism to skip over to the "OK/Yes/Done" button, from which pressing E again would act as a Left-Click to confirm the choice selection. Also, instead of having to go to the pause menu, and then hit squad menu, or Journal, or Codex, you could simply press U, J, or H, respectively.

In Mass Effect 2 PC, BioWare decided for some reason to remove the WASD capability to cycle through menus, so I ended up having to click something on the top left of the screen, then drag my mouse all the way to the bottom right to hit an OK / Exit / Whatever button to confirm my first selection. Not only is this inconvenient, but after doing this endlessly throughout the course of the game, I started dragging my mouse to the wrong confirmation button at times and ended up cursing under my breath as I had just pressed the "Cancel" button.

Also, in Mass Effect 2 PC the ability to switch through weapons using F1, F2, F3, and F4 respectively for Pistol/Shotgun/Assault Rifle/Sniper Rifle was removed for some reason, so now I needed to enter the Power Screen (pause), move my mouse over to my weapon selection, wait for it to open up, hover my mouse over the selected weapon, select it with left click, and then let go of Shift to get out of the Power Screen. All in all, a very tedious process to switch weapons when in Mass Effect 1 I could just press F1 or something to switch to my sidearm pistol.


I agree with you, the port of Mass Effect 2 was awful and worse than the good port of Mass Effect 1.

A sequel is supposed to be better than its predecessor, yes?

Another thing to note is the removal of two hotkeys from the power bar and the removal of the crouch button.


I can tell you right now that DXHR will be a hand holding, follow the dot, gamey, unimpressive unimmersive experience similar to the let-down of Bioshock, Conviction, Vegas, etc. Go here, go there. Watch this watch that. Dumb dumb dumb.

Could I borrow your copy of the game?

Pretty please?


Okay the problem isn't with Mass Effect 2, it's just you're evidently playing the game while so drunk or high so that you can't accurately click a confirmation button. How is it that after playing the game over and over you get worse at finding the right button to click.

And the power wheel is fine. Easy and quick to bring up, and click an icon. And really how much work is there in letting go of the shift button. In fact in ME2 there's less clicking since they finally added the ability to map companion powers to number keys. Since you use a PC and seem to hate clicking so much you might be better suited with a console controller.

I wasn't drunk or high when I played ME2 and I found it quite annoying to keep having to mouse over the 'Confirm' and 'Cancel' every time I was in a menu.

The power bar is not fine; in fact, the game can crash if you want to re-map powers to different shortcuts.


Personally, i'm not that concerned with the map sizes, small maps with loading screens can work if done well, nor with graphics (original had bad graphics even for its time, and i still love the game).
I'm not even worried about the lack of skills (i'm 99% certain that game would be better with skills in addition to augs, but fine, i can live without them).
What worries me is that i'll end up playing with a crappy controls, bad user interface and miserable excuse of an inventory.
well, that and that they might dumb down the plot (not because players are stupid, but because execs think we are), that they'll sacrifice stealth and immersion for "cool" takedowns and fast cinematic combat, that the 3rd person cover will make stealth too easy or breaks immersion, that they might stuff in a totally superfluous and/or stupid, yet mandatory, romantic sideplot (i like romance in games, when done well, but most of the times it ends up with me wanting to strangle my romantic interest for being a moron, or commit suicide for being a total wimp/doormat, or both), and, ofcourse, that Adam Jensen might end up being complete ***** and a whiner instead of a stoic badass.
but that's just me being grumpy antisocial pessimistic misanthrope with atitude issues.

The skills have been placed within the augmentations.

There will be an inventory and it will be like in the original Deus Ex, except you can now rotate items.


But I got a feeling that this will very streamlined like IW, but that's what always happens when consoles are thrown into the mix.
I'm guessing there'll be no DX11 support (or DX10)?


At least I know with this engine we should see FSAA whilst HDR is enabled. This is important because most DX9 games use deferred HDR lighting which is normally incompatible with normal FSAA. Of course in the idea world this game would have DX11 support but given MS (which ironically is in the PC Gaming Alliance...) has been poaching PC games to make them X360 exclusive it's not surprise that this will be DX9 only (version 9.0c was released in Aug 2004...ancient by computer standards!).

There will be DX11 support.


I didn't say that everyone had one, or that the average gamer has one. People who use TFT non widescreen monitors are people who clearly don't upgrade, which means they are most likely casual gamers.

:confused:

I use a 1280x1024 17" TFT monitor and I am NOT a casual gamer.

Nyysjan
23rd Aug 2010, 17:39
The skills have been placed within the augmentations.

There will be an inventory and it will be like in the original Deus Ex, except you can now rotate items.


No, augs have been placed in augs, they might allow us technically do same things skills otherwise would have, but they still are augs, and us learning how to use them, instead of skills we have learned before.
We don't really know what the augs are yet, or how the exp will be used to improve on them, and until we do we can't really say wether or not the augs will do what skills did in DX (probably not, they have stated that weapon skills are out, as are the lockpicks and multitools, there might be first aid, enviromental hazard and swimming augs though, but i doubt it)

The inventory bit is nice news though, altough when i made that post we had not learned about it though.

Delever
23rd Aug 2010, 17:55
What does it mean to "rotate items" ?

pha
23rd Aug 2010, 17:58
Imagine an item which occupies 4 inventory slots, like the Sniper Rifle in DX1. You can put it horizontally or vertically depending on the free space in the inventory.

* * * *

or

*
*
*
*

Delever
23rd Aug 2010, 18:07
Oh great, old ideas from the most known puzzle game are returning :)

Jerion
23rd Aug 2010, 18:17
No, augs have been placed in augs, they might allow us technically do same things skills otherwise would have, but they still are augs, and us learning how to use them, instead of skills we have learned before.
We don't really know what the augs are yet, or how the exp will be used to improve on them, and until we do we can't really say wether or not the augs will do what skills did in DX (probably not, they have stated that weapon skills are out, as are the lockpicks and multitools, there might be first aid, enviromental hazard and swimming augs though, but i doubt it)

Okay, that first bit doesn't make any sense to me. "but they still are augs, and us learning how to use them, instead of skills we have learned before". Huh? If you or your character have learned something before, then it makes no sense to have it magically denied to you for a while until you unlock it.

Shralla
23rd Aug 2010, 18:52
No, augs have been placed in augs, they might allow us technically do same things skills otherwise would have, but they still are augs, and us learning how to use them, instead of skills we have learned before.

Learn to use skills, learn to use augs. If they do the same thing, like you just said they might, then it's the same goddamn thing.

Dr_Bob
23rd Aug 2010, 19:46
Learn to use skills, learn to use augs. If they do the same thing, like you just said they might, then it's the same goddamn thing.

I agree.

Another reason I am glad the skills have been manifested into the augmentations is because I find it very irritating to have wobbly aim with my guns, even though I am a trained government agent.

Because of this, my skills with a mouse, and ONLY my skills with a mouse, will dictate whether I can aim at the enemies or not.

Pinky_Powers
23rd Aug 2010, 21:14
I agree.

Another reason I am glad the skills have been manifested into the augmentations is because I find it very irritating to have wobbly aim with my guns, even though I am a trained government agent.

Because of this, my skills with a mouse, and ONLY my skills with a mouse, will dictate whether I can aim at the enemies or not.


You're the very first fellow to bring this point up! What a perceptive notion! :eek:

Pretentious Old Man.
23rd Aug 2010, 23:10
Because of this, my skills with a mouse, and ONLY my skills with a mouse, will dictate whether I can aim at the enemies or not.

Well, that's your opinion. Presumably you see it as an FPS over an RPG. That doesn't necessarily make your opinion better than those who see it as an RPG first and an FPS second, nor does it make them wrong. (Nor vice-versa of course, opinions are just that.) Thus, less of the black and white capitalisations and "my opinion is king" stuff, if you please.

luminar
24th Aug 2010, 03:12
I agree.

Another reason I am glad the skills have been manifested into the augmentations is because I find it very irritating to have wobbly aim with my guns, even though I am a trained government agent.

Because of this, my skills with a mouse, and ONLY my skills with a mouse, will dictate whether I can aim at the enemies or not.

Do they ever say what jc's training involved? Actually wasn't that a lie? He was genetically engineered and aged quickly so I think the tutorial was really his training right? Or maybe he just had in class training. Personally I thought it was a fairly decent system. If you run you can't aim if you stop or move slowly you can, and depending on your skill level the crosshairs would tighten quicker. Works for me.

Nyysjan
24th Aug 2010, 03:27
Okay, that first bit doesn't make any sense to me. "but they still are augs, and us learning how to use them, instead of skills we have learned before". Huh? If you or your character have learned something before, then it makes no sense to have it magically denied to you for a while until you unlock it.

Ok, that came out pretty oddly i admit, shouldn't post just before going to sleep.
What i meant, was that there is a difference, between a skill the person has learned naturally (and in DX, you had learned basics before game starts, wich you then improved, but that was kinda irrelevant to the point i tried to make), and abilities that are basicly bolted into you because you decided to hand some person a wad of cash.

And that there are no skills, just augs, limits customization and feel of the character, you don't get better at anything, you're just upgraded (ok, you do get better at using your upgrades, but i don't think that's the same thing)


I agree.

Another reason I am glad the skills have been manifested into the augmentations is because I find it very irritating to have wobbly aim with my guns, even though I am a trained government agent.

Because of this, my skills with a mouse, and ONLY my skills with a mouse, will dictate whether I can aim at the enemies or not.

And i'm tired of the "government agent who can't shoot anything" line,
1. Not all agents are experts in armed combat
2. JC had enough skill points to get training in one or two weapons from get go if you did not choose to specialize in something else
3. even without any skills in the weapons, JC was far more accurate with them than average untrained person would be (i had no trouble using weapons, altough i did train rifles pretty high after i got comps and lockpicks/electronics to 3)

Xenoc
24th Aug 2010, 09:36
:confused:

I use a 1280x1024 17" TFT monitor and I am NOT a casual gamer.

1280x1024 is not a widescreen resolution, 1680x1050 is...

DeusWhatever
24th Aug 2010, 12:45
1280x1024 is not a widescreen resolution, 1680x1050 is...

I also used a CRT until recently. But let me tell you one thing, you will love a 24" 16:10 screen, at least i do now, and if you buy the right one you also have no problem with tearing etc. also they are pretty cheap compared to some years ago.

Dr_Bob
24th Aug 2010, 13:53
1280x1024 is not a widescreen resolution, 1680x1050 is...

And where exactly am I supposed to have said that 1280x1024 is a widescreen resolution?

Xenoc
24th Aug 2010, 20:35
knicker twistage

Kodaemon
13th Jan 2011, 20:42
Necroing for a highly relevant quote from a very nice PC Gamer article on the 15 things we want in Skyrim (http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/12/30/15-things-we-want-to-see-in-the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/):


10. A proper PC interface

Come on, nerdy stats and inventory lists are what the PC was made for. Let us at ‘em. Oblivion’s interface is capable of listing between THREE and SIX items at a time before you have to scroll. Same goes for the map – if Bethesda have any idea how important a really good map can be to the sense of being in a fantasy world, the size of the damn thing in Oblivion didn’t show it. These aren’t huge issues, but look: modders fixed them in a day or two. If you seriously don’t have anyone who can do that before release, hire those modders.

I know every cross-platform developer loves to say “All three versions are identical,” to wash their hands of the platform wars, but guys: they’re not. One of them is played with a mouse and keyboard from two feet away. Notice this.

Bold for emphasis.

Fox89
13th Jan 2011, 21:46
Christ, I didn't know this thread was simmering in the background. Well, David screwed himself over with some poorly chosen terminology in the quote referenced at the beginning. Of COURSE there are going to be SOME differences, so saying they will deliver an 'identical experience' is simply implying the same content and that all platforms have been treated with the same care. A PC version will almost certainly allow additional effects like V-synch and AA, better texture resolutions and at the very least smaller fonts etc.

Saying "all 3 will deliver the same experience as we have developed simultaneously on all 3" would have been much better phrased as "No one platform will suffer massive framerate dips and texture pop-in due to developing on one platform and then hastilly porting".

Eidos have also said the PC version will have improved AI to better suit the control system. Which they wouldn't do if EVERY version of the game would literally 'give an identical experience'. He's merely trying to imply something positive only to have his word taken completely the wrong way.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
15th Jan 2011, 12:54
They always say this with old PC franchises. It is the easiest marketing trick in the book. That way you don't immediatly scare off the old PC gamers. When they have confirmed that the PC is no longer the lead platform the next marketing trick is to say that there is a team working exclusively on the PC version in order to ensure that it is good. What they mean is that two guys will take a look at the UI after the game is completed and just switch the names of the buttons used and add mouse support. Also the HD space required will be jacked up with 9 extra gigs.

It really shouldn't have come as a surprise. All the earliest previews were on the Xbox. The demo was on the Xbox. Dugas and co generally refer to console controller buttons when talking about the game. Several devs have stated that the console is their favorite platform in various interviews.

My biggest concerns when a PC game is ported is that the menu navigation is generally piss-poor. Controls for character movement are poor. Hotkey set-up is limited to what can fit on a controller. And in the worst cases level design is poor.

You have huge issues mate. Cheer up dude. :)

Irate_Iguana
15th Jan 2011, 13:19
You have huge issues mate. Cheer up dude. :)

Thanks for caring six months after the fact.

Arksun
15th Jan 2011, 19:21
they'd damn well better make it playable without a gamepad on PC

I don't have any worries regarding that. The Assassins Creed 2 interface translated very well to mouse + keyboard I think. In fact I'd much rather play that game with mouse + keyboard instead of the games controller it was designed for.

Game controllers can't quite compete with the pinpoint accuracy and speed of a laser mouse, or at least I could never get used to them, but then I'm PC old skool :D

subtlesnake
15th Jan 2011, 19:39
Ok, that came out pretty oddly i admit, shouldn't post just before going to sleep.
What i meant, was that there is a difference, between a skill the person has learned naturally (and in DX, you had learned basics before game starts, wich you then improved, but that was kinda irrelevant to the point i tried to make), and abilities that are basicly bolted into you because you decided to hand some person a wad of cash.

And that there are no skills, just augs, limits customization and feel of the character, you don't get better at anything, you're just upgraded (ok, you do get better at using your upgrades, but i don't think that's the same thing)
I just noticed this quote, now the thread has been bumped up.

I felt the same way as you do originally, but then I had a thought. Isn't learning how to use a mechanical arm essentially like learning how to use a real arm? Your brain gets better at interpreting the signals from your limb, and becomes capable of finer and finer movements. You don't start off with a "fully upgraded" arm; rather you can gradually train that arm to do different things, like perhaps control recoil more effectively, and that's where the element of 'skill' is introduced.

As I see it a mechanical arm is the same, only it can in principle do more things - the 'upper limit' is greater. So Adam can develop his skills in a way he couldn't with a real arm, but the element of 'skill' is still there. Can Adam play guitar with his bionic arm? Probably not without practice.