PDA

View Full Version : DX1 was good because of a design flaw?



artifex0
16th Jul 2010, 00:38
So, I have a pet theory about why Deus Ex is still so popular despite a decade of gameplay advances-- I think the designers may have hit upon something accidentally that's been lost to more careful and sophisticated game design: in DX1, it wasn't always clear what your options were for progressing through the game.

Take the scene in the jet, for instance-- You have three options: Kill the rebel and complete your mission objective, stall and let Navarre do it, or murder Navarre and save the rebel. In a modern game, all three options would probably be clearly presented-- there might be a cutscene followed by three dialog choices, one of which would be something like "I can't let you kill him, Anna, even if I have to fight you.", after which you'd receive a new mission objective like "Kill Agent Navarre". Deus Ex, on the other hand, doesn't even make it clear that it's possible to kill Navarre, much less that the plotline will adapt to and reward your action, rather then just giving you an "Ally Killed; Mission Failure" screen.

That's very bad game design by modern standards, and it wasn't even consistent- Gunther was unkillable just outside the hangar. But when I discovered that option, and some of the other less obvious plot paths, it made the entire game feel as though it would adapt to whatever I tried to do. It gave the illusion that the game was some sort of impossibly sophisticated sandbox, rather then just a railroaded plotline with a few multiple choice events.

So, what I wonder about Human Revolution is: how well hidden are the alternate paths through the game, and will new paths be triggered by player actions, or just selected from a list of options?

Pretentious Old Man.
16th Jul 2010, 00:42
It's not good game design to tell you the outcomes of a situation, it's just modern day convention on game design. More consistency would be nice, but this should definitely not be "fixed"...


Press "x" to save Lebedev and watch a cutscene...

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 00:55
artifex0:

This may be one of the odder (I'm really restraining myself here) things I have read on these forums. Telling you everything beforehand is "good game design"? Actually letting you figure things out yourself, and choose based on your own psychology and philosophy (or the way you think JC would act) is "very bad game design"?

artifex0
16th Jul 2010, 01:22
artifex0:

This may be one of the odder (I'm really restraining myself here) things I have read on these forums. Telling you everything beforehand is "good game design"? Actually letting you figure things out yourself, and choose based on your own psychology and philosophy (or the way you think JC would act) is "very bad game design"?

Well, that seems to be the assumption among game designers these days. Games like the Mass Effect and Bioshock series go to great lengths to make sure you know what your main options are, and I think they're probably worse off for it.

I suppose making your options unclear in Deus Ex could have been an intentional design decision-- it's probably even insulting for me to assume otherwise. Either way, I hope Human Revolution doesn't make it's non-linear paths too obvious for the sake of accessibility

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 01:25
I suppose the hidden options Deus Ex could have been an intentional design philosophy

I think you can take that for granted... ;)

Gizmostuff
16th Jul 2010, 01:30
I wouldn't say it's bad game design. Rather the opposite. It's rather ingenious to be honest. You can call it something different than the norm of what other game developers were doing and still are. Thinking for one self in a game when you don't know what's going to happen was a great idea. When I had to kill Lebedev on the 747 the game surprised me and basically I did what I thought I'd do. I asked myself is this right? Should I kill this unarmed man just because some ***** ordered me to? I think the devs wanted to give you a real choice and decide right in that situation what would you really do.

The only game flaw in terms of choice was when you save Paul or don't. Where it's more likely don't go out the window to save Paul or do and he dies or just accidentally die in the Ton and he lives. I killed everybody in the Ton and still went out the window. Not because I wanted him to die but because strategically why would I go out the front door where several UNATCO troopers are waiting for me. It was a ****ty placed trigger and hopefully won't happen in DX:HR

TrickyVein
16th Jul 2010, 02:45
That's very bad game design by modern standards, and it wasn't even consistent- Gunther was unkillable just outside the hangar. But when I discovered that option, and some of the other less obvious plot paths, it made the entire game feel as though it would adapt to whatever I tried to do. It gave the illusion that the game was some sort of impossibly sophisticated sandbox, rather then just a railroaded plotline with a few multiple choice events.

Good observation, Tim.

Once you realize that Anna can be killed in the 747, you start wondering just how early on in the game you can kill her. You start wondering if, as you mention, you can kill Gunther as well. Manderley even? What's to stop you? By the time you get to the abandoned NSF base, you're totally convinced that you don't have to send the distress signal from the rooftop to the French at all.

You see though, that's what gets me to play through the game a second, third...x time. It's not a total mood killer if I find out that you can't do any of these things. At that point - when I begin wondering just how far I can push the game - the barrier between what the game allows me to do and what I want to do dissolves. The game and the story become your own, and you feel like the choices you make are yours - because you're the one who came up with them in the first place - not told them through some obvious alternate dialogue choice or cut-scene that you have to watch when you reach a certain point *cough, hack, splutter.*

FrankCSIS
16th Jul 2010, 03:04
I'd call it engaging game design. Which, by the way, is part of the true definition of interractivity. When the player thinks of a possibility, and the game follows thorugh as if his possibility was the one solution destined for it, you create a connection that no "select your path" cheap design can possibly produce. Interractivity has nothing to do with the fact that you physically control the player or his actions. A book, a song, or hell, a painting, can be immensely interractive. It's all in the connections you create between the piece itself and the public that views it. I'd say a majority of games, in fact, are less interractive than many a book.

The only "flaw" is that in two or three plot-changing instances the game didn't follow through to the possibilities many players had imagined and tried to convey.

Romeo
16th Jul 2010, 03:12
Yeah, I'm actually annoyed that most modern games (Notably RPGs) don't allow for this. Mass Effect sort've had this going for it, due to the carry-over from decision made in the first to the second, but even that felt neutered and forced... I think if DX:HR can manage this particular detail, that could and probably will be it's saving grace for those who are reeling from the health regen and third person issues.

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 03:24
Yeah, I'm actually annoyed that most modern games (Notably RPGs) don't allow for this. Mass Effect sort've had this going for it, due to the carry-over from decision made in the first to the second, but even that felt neutered and forced... I think if DX:HR can manage this particular detail, that could and probably will be it's saving grace for those who are reeling from the health regen and third person issues.

It would certainly go a long way, I can tell you that.

TrickyVein
16th Jul 2010, 03:30
I'll adapt to whatever the game-play if the story offers enough of these kinds of ambiguous "What if?"moments. However, in the absence of any substantial story, all that's left will be the game-play to dote upon and whether or not it delivers, but I doubt that events will conspire to be as such.

Romeo
16th Jul 2010, 04:13
I'll adapt to whatever the game-play if the story offers enough of these kinds of ambiguous "What if?"moments. However, in the absence of any substantial story, all that's left will be the game-play to dote upon and whether or not it delivers, but I doubt that events will conspire to be as such.
See, to me, the story HAS to be fantastic in this game. I can forgive gameplay decisions and all that, so long as the single player experience was memorable, which to me, typically comes down to the story. Now, an adaptive story is hard to pull off, but if properly executed, by far the most memorable, as it's yours.

PS, loving the new signature. lol

K^2
16th Jul 2010, 05:46
Yeah, these days saving Lebedev would probably be a quick time event. That's not good game design. It's pampering to... I really don't have polite words for that category of gamers.

Irate_Iguana
16th Jul 2010, 07:20
Yeah, these days saving Lebedev would probably be a quick time event. That's not good game design. It's pampering to... I really don't have polite words for that category of gamers.

Most developers like to call that pampering "accessibility". Everything nowadays has to be "accessible". Although the phrase should mean that it is easy to begin with gaming the meaning seems to have changed to hand-holding. Intuitive controls and a clear menu structure would be improving accessibility. Instead games incorporate quest compasses that guide you with unerring precision to whatever it is that needs to be done. Everything is clearly laid out in front of you. Most devs seem to think that "accessibility" should mean that a game can almost play itself.

Dead-Eye
16th Jul 2010, 07:35
Yes, when modern games like ME2 tell me beforehand what is likely to happen it ruins a lot of the fun of gaming. Better to leave things a mystery so when you do find out what happens you think it was you're idea.

Slaughterman
16th Jul 2010, 08:08
I totally agree with you artifex. I think people underestimate the greatness this mechanism added to the game. Even if I still hope DX:HR will keep this aspect of the first game, I really doubt it as it can creates for casual players a feeling of being lost in what to do... And we all know that one of the most important goal of Eidos Montreal is to make the game a popular hit commercially.

K^2
16th Jul 2010, 08:49
Most developers like to call that pampering "accessibility". Everything nowadays has to be "accessible".

They really need a logo to warn hardcore gamers that the particular game is accessible. There isn't even a need to invent anything new. They already have a logo for places that are accessible. Just use that.



http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/unknown-chicago/5-31--logo.jpg

Irate_Iguana
16th Jul 2010, 09:04
They already have a logo for places that are accessible. Just use that.

That made me lol.


Trivia time; the word lol means fun in Dutch. Interesting to see how internet shorthand and real life can overlap.

TrickyVein
16th Jul 2010, 11:59
So what does rofl translate to?

Pretentious Old Man.
16th Jul 2010, 12:06
So what does rofl translate to?

"bloody Belgians" :rasp:

Kvltism
16th Jul 2010, 12:14
Yeah, these days saving Lebedev would probably be a quick time event. That's not good game design. It's pampering to... I really don't have polite words for that category of gamers.

I would just call them part-time gamers; people who expect instant gratification, pretty graphics, big explosions and the like without having to exert any effort.

Your statement re: the Lebedev encounter made me laugh because it seems like such a likely scenario. A shame, really.

Cylon
16th Jul 2010, 12:45
So, I have a pet theory about why Deus Ex is still so popular despite a decade of gameplay advances-- I think the designers may have hit upon something accidentally that's been lost to more careful and sophisticated game design: in DX1, it wasn't always clear what your options were for progressing through the game.

Take the scene in the jet, for instance-- You have three options: Kill the rebel and complete your mission objective, stall and let Navarre do it, or murder Navarre and save the rebel. In a modern game, all three options would probably be clearly presented-- there might be a cutscene followed by three dialog choices, one of which would be something like "I can't let you kill him, Anna, even if I have to fight you.", after which you'd receive a new mission objective like "Kill Agent Navarre". Deus Ex, on the other hand, doesn't even make it clear that it's possible to kill Navarre, much less that the plotline will adapt to and reward your action, rather then just giving you an "Ally Killed; Mission Failure" screen.

That's very bad game design by modern standards, and it wasn't even consistent- Gunther was unkillable just outside the hangar. But when I discovered that option, and some of the other less obvious plot paths, it made the entire game feel as though it would adapt to whatever I tried to do. It gave the illusion that the game was some sort of impossibly sophisticated sandbox, rather then just a railroaded plotline with a few multiple choice events.

So, what I wonder about Human Revolution is: how well hidden are the alternate paths through the game, and will new paths be triggered by player actions, or just selected from a list of options?

so you mean the game should tell you you have several options, even though the game sells with the promise letting you solve problems in different ways, and you say the game also must tell you how to solve the problem in any other way than the given ?

whats the fun in that ? I love when you have to figure things out yourself, and not get hand held all the time like some kid.
I'm a thinking grown man, I don't need any one to tell me how to solve things and when I can solve things in any other way, believe me I can figure it out now.

And how can something be considered hidden if the game points out where the hidden area is ?
Lets hope they view us as grown adults and not kids needing to be guided all the time.

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 12:47
"bloody Belgians" :rasp:

Thank you, for making my "morning" (just woke up, but it's nearly 3 pm here). :lol:

Blade_hunter
16th Jul 2010, 12:49
There is a point that accessibility just make me think that some games are made for an unspeakable kind of people; and this represents a lot of stupidities at the point that the games loose most of their interactivity. or even offer stupidities like quick time events and cousins of it. And I approve the K^2's idea, really some games really needs it.

Pretentious Old Man.
16th Jul 2010, 12:56
Thank you, for making my "morning" (just woke up, but it's nearly 3 pm here). :lol:

Any time.

WildcatPhoenix
16th Jul 2010, 13:36
"bloody Belgians" :rasp:

Brilliant. Rec'd for copious amounts of win! :thumb::thumb:


The "problem" (and I put the word in quotes because it's actually a great problem for a game to have) with open-ended storylines and branching arcs stems from the player's desire to "push the boundaries." Once you realize you can kill Anna, or save Paul, or run away from Simons, or any of the other optional choices in Deus Ex, the player soon wants to see just how much freedom he/she has really been granted. I know everyone would love to see what the story would be like if JC could've stayed with UNATCO. Of course this would've demanded a huge amount of work to make two completely separate storylines, tons more dialogue, and some serious attention to non-linear storytelling. I'm not sure if any gaming studio would be willing to devote that much development time to pull something like this off.

But once you plant the seed in the player's mind that "you really can do anything," it makes for a (seemingly) unlimited number of possibilities and really pulls the player into the game world. Which is why we play games in the first place.

PizzaNo1
16th Jul 2010, 14:04
Well said, WildcatPhoenix!

Artfunkel
16th Jul 2010, 17:20
Signposting is a console thing if the Bioshock devs are any authority to go by - can't find the link unfortunately. Console gamers want to be led by the hand, PC gamers want to explore. I know that I turned off the quest arrow in Bioshock (if indeed it wasn't disabled by default) and the GPS in GTA4.

Romeo
16th Jul 2010, 17:38
"bloody Belgians" :rasp:
Hey now, Aston Martin, Ford and Chevrolet all have manufacturing plants in Belgium. =P

Angel-A
16th Jul 2010, 18:09
Not pointing everything out to you as if you were too incompetant to find your hands meant Deus Ex had a lot of things for the player to discover on their own. There's not any clear path, you have to think out what you need to do and how you'll do it. When you find a new convo you feel as giddy as you do when you find an easter egg. :D
BTW, there a 4th option to kill Navarre and Lebedev.

WildcatPhoenix
16th Jul 2010, 18:21
The main thing I hope for in a game like Deus Ex is to forget that I'm playing a game in the first place.

If a developer can create a simulation environment that leaves me asking, "What should I do? Do I trust this person? Should I really pull the trigger? I don't feel good about the orders my superiors are giving me" instead of "Hmmm, I wonder what will get me the most skill points?" or "How can I advance to the next level?", then you are experiencing immersion. You are no longer yourself, you are the character, or you have transposed yourself onto the character. You aren't thinking in terms of gaming points or achievements or unlocking new weapons or moving from Point A to B to C. You are asking moral questions. You are being introspective, challenging your own personal beliefs.

I'd venture to say that not many of us are soldiers or police or fighter pilots or assassins. But when a game can bring us to the point where we put ourselves in the shoes of someone facing these life-or-death decisions, that's when games become more than just entertainment. And that's what I think Deus Ex did better than any other game I've ever played.

Shralla
16th Jul 2010, 18:23
I killed the **** out of Anna my first playthrough when I was in middle school.

Of course, I was always trying to break games and do things I'm not supposed to before that. But that's what makes Deus Ex so awesome. Where other games would get broken by something you do, Deus Ex just adapts. It shouldn't be obvious.

Fluffis
16th Jul 2010, 18:30
BTW, there a 4th option to kill Navarre and Lebedev.

Ah yes... Wait until Anna comes in, run out and toss in a LAM. One of my personal favourites.

PizzaNo1
16th Jul 2010, 20:31
These are dark days indeed, if one of the parts that made DX1 great, is considered a 'flaw' by the 'kewl' console owners.

Surely there must be console owners that like intellectualy rewarding games? aka finding stuff without having a big red arrow pointing at a spot saying -'like uh secret stuff! Tha u find, u good!!' ?
Or even worse: 'uhm like u kun do this stuff'

I'm sure DX:HR will be good, I just hope they keep out any 'hand holding', and keep that to the console.

Irate_Iguana
16th Jul 2010, 20:56
Surely there must be console owners that like intellectualy rewarding games? aka finding stuff without having a big red arrow pointing at a spot saying -'like uh secret stuff! Tha u find, u good!!' ?
Or even worse: 'uhm like u kun do this stuff'

The problem isn't with console owners, but rather with the dim view that publishers seem to have of them. Publishers seem to be of the idea that less hand-holding just cannot succeed on the console. They are generally not even willing to try something like that.

K^2
16th Jul 2010, 21:00
Trivia time; the word lol means fun in Dutch. Interesting to see how internet shorthand and real life can overlap.
That same root became "Loll" in English. "Lollingly" is an actual adverb in English language, despite claims of my spell checker to the contrary.

I make a lot of my posts lollingly.

Pinky_Powers
16th Jul 2010, 21:07
I make a lot of my posts lollingly.

And it smells great!

geofflee
16th Jul 2010, 21:47
I can't possibly agree more with the OP. Please please don't make the choices simple or obvious in DX:HR.

PizzaNo1
16th Jul 2010, 21:55
The problem isn't with console owners, but rather with the dim view that publishers seem to have of them. Publishers seem to be of the idea that less hand-holding just cannot succeed on the console. They are generally not even willing to try something like that.

True. No guts in the gaming industry anymore.

mrvwbug
16th Jul 2010, 22:15
Ah yes... Wait until Anna comes in, run out and toss in a LAM. One of my personal favourites.

I <3 LAMs, my favorite little implement of destruction, toss em like grenades or stick em to a wall for a booby trap.

I loved setting LAM traps in the first game.

I also loved the non-obvious plot choices, the first game was very immersive, you didn't have the console hand holding disrupting the plot (essentially a plot you were creating as you went along).

the large variety of ways you could build your character and deal with the situations created excellent replay value. You could run in with all guns blazing, or snipe your way through, or stealth your way through. If you really wanted you could play through the entire game without killing anyone or destroying anything (stun baton, xbow and EMP grenades ftw)

jkruse
16th Jul 2010, 22:34
These are dark days indeed, if one of the parts that made DX1 great, is considered a 'flaw' by the 'kewl' console owners.

Surely there must be console owners that like intellectualy rewarding games? aka finding stuff without having a big red arrow pointing at a spot saying -'like uh secret stuff! Tha u find, u good!!' ?
Or even worse: 'uhm like u kun do this stuff'

I'm sure DX:HR will be good, I just hope they keep out any 'hand holding', and keep that to the console.

Me? Then again, I play on PC too, so, yeah. Kinda reminds me of the change from Morrowind to Oblivion. In Morrowind you got written directions that were sometimes stupidly hard to follow so I 'd just wander around. Then Oblivion added a quest marker on a compass. It just didn't feel the same, and none of the mods to remove it or change it work right.

mad_red
16th Jul 2010, 23:01
That made me lol.


Trivia time; the word lol means fun in Dutch. Interesting to see how internet shorthand and real life can overlap.

Heh, een kaaskop.

This reminds me how in some very, very old games, "joystick" was translated as "lolstok". That's just wrong. :gamer:


This is a great topic by the way. There was some talk of this here and there, I'm glad someone brought it up again.

pringlepower
16th Jul 2010, 23:29
These are dark days indeed, if one of the parts that made DX1 great, is considered a 'flaw' by the 'kewl' console owners.

Surely there must be console owners that like intellectualy rewarding games? aka finding stuff without having a big red arrow pointing at a spot saying -'like uh secret stuff! Tha u find, u good!!' ?
Or even worse: 'uhm like u kun do this stuff'

I'm sure DX:HR will be good, I just hope they keep out any 'hand holding', and keep that to the console.

It is a flaw. It's inconsistent. It's great that Anna could be killed on the plane, but she was invincible until then and you had no idea she could be killed, same with Gunther outside the subway. Since I'm an uncreative lout I don't know how they could've done it better, but it was a huge flaw (however delicious and coated with frosting).

pringlepower
16th Jul 2010, 23:30
I <3 LAMs, my favorite little implement of destruction, toss em like grenades or stick em to a wall for a booby trap.

I loved setting LAM traps in the first game.

I also loved the non-obvious plot choices, the first game was very immersive, you didn't have the console hand holding disrupting the plot (essentially a plot you were creating as you went along).

the large variety of ways you could build your character and deal with the situations created excellent replay value. You could run in with all guns blazing, or snipe your way through, or stealth your way through. If you really wanted you could play through the entire game without killing anyone or destroying anything (stun baton, xbow and EMP grenades ftw)

EMP grenades?

tartarus_sauce
16th Jul 2010, 23:41
I don't think quest markers/arrows are at all bad. To me, they compensate for the fact that however open a game is, it just can't square with how open reality is. There's nothing more frustrating for me, as a gamer, than having no idea where I'm supposed to go to get the ball rolling on a quest. Usually it's some counter-intuitive cubbyhole on the far side of a map, or some obscured doorway that isn't visible unless you use the Magic Orb of Thessela or something. Deus Ex never had that problem because the developers were willing to give the players an unusual amount of freedom. This meant there weren't any sexy scripted action railroad sequences or cinematic cutscenes, but then at the time such things weren't all that practical anyway.

It seems to me as if the close combat kill sequences in HR are actually an improvement in this regard. They've found a way to include spectacles like that, but without having to create the kind of bizarro "You must be exactly here at exactly this time to enjoy this content" annoyances that lot of other developers rely on.

Fluffis
17th Jul 2010, 00:01
It is a flaw. It's inconsistent. It's great that Anna could be killed on the plane, but she was invincible until then and you had no idea she could be killed

But until that moment, you had had no real incentive to kill Anna. She's annoying, yes, but that's not a good enough reason to kill someone. When she forces the issue of killing a guy who has information about you, then you have a reason.



same with Gunther outside the subway. Since I'm an uncreative lout I don't know how they could've done it better, but it was a huge flaw (however delicious and coated with frosting).


Günther at Battery Park is set up like that, since it gives you a real reason to kill him the next time you meet him. Not just self-defence, but for revenge and because he is a genuine threat. Until he is the one that is able to capture you, Günther is not really a threat. He is more of a "comedy" character - bumbling, slightly illiterate and out-dated. At that point he becomes a real threat. It's also to show that you were completely out-gunned, without actually having to put hundreds of NPC:s on screen (thus saving computer power).

Deus Ex is set up so that when there is a reason for JC to kill a major character, then you can do it.

It's not a flaw. It's a genuine creative decision.

TrickyVein
17th Jul 2010, 00:31
It seems to me as if the close combat kill sequences in HR are actually an improvement in this regard. They've found a way to include spectacles like that, but without having to create the kind of bizarro "You must be exactly here at exactly this time to enjoy this content" annoyances that lot of other developers rely on.

Would you elaborate? What do you mean by "..exactly here at exactly this time...?"I would mention the mandatory activated cut-scene which pops up at the end of the air-vent, as well as the movie we see of AJ throwing his bulk through a window to provide counterexamples to what you've just said.

Oh, wait. :) go watch the gameplay vids (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=111363) first, then we'll see about discussing this further.

tartarus_sauce
17th Jul 2010, 01:06
I'm talking about those ridiculous, demandingly linear quest lines in a lot of games. Surely you've experienced to the horrible frustration of running around a game level, pulling your hair out trying to find that one person or activate that one cutscene that will move the game forward or lead to the next phase of the level. The beautiful thing about Deus Ex was that there were always a number of routes to take, and you were never bottlenecked because of your skill choices.

What I see in the video is entirely different. That's gameplay, not quest archiecture. I really like it. Those cool, violent mini-cutscenes are, in my mind, a way of rewarding more patient and attentive gameplay. They're a way of encouraging stealth rather than blaze-away shoot outs. And they're much, much cooler than the buggy, boring, inconsistent stun prod from Deus Ex. The way I figure, if you manage to sneak up behind someone, you deserve a treat.

Anasumtj
17th Jul 2010, 01:31
See, I guess the problem is that not everybody views these gameplay-altering cutscenes as much of a "treat" and more like - Oh, I dunno - abominations.

tartarus_sauce
17th Jul 2010, 04:38
The murderous cutscenes look more fun to me than zapping someone over and over with a prod until the engine finally realizes that I'm actually touching the target

Fluffis
17th Jul 2010, 07:44
The murderous cutscenes look more fun to me than zapping someone over and over with a prod until the engine finally realizes that I'm actually touching the target

Just creep up (crouched), until you can't go any further, and jam it in the lower back of the NPC. It's not that hard.

pringlepower
17th Jul 2010, 09:26
Yea I agree.
What is this silly talk about getting a 'treat' all the time?
What I'm hearing is: 'I want someone to sit right next to me/ follow me everywhere, and tell me how, and when to do every thing, and tell me when I'm a good/bad boy.'
Didn't we try to break free from our parents way back?

I just needed to get that outa my system. :rolleyes:

Well it's hard to really believe you when everything that comes out of you is "this game is turning people into retarded babies who need their hands held through everything". Honestly in DE stealth kills were the same. Walk up, slap them in the face, take their pants. You can argue lack of immersion, and that's fair, but don't repeat the same bull**** for every little problem.

PizzaNo1
17th Jul 2010, 09:35
Well it's hard to really believe you when everything that comes out of you is "this game is turning people into retarded babies who need their hands held through everything". Honestly in DE stealth kills were the same. Walk up, slap them in the face, take their pants. You can argue lack of immersion, and that's fair, but don't repeat the same bull**** for every little problem.

Point taken, I have been repeating my self to much.

pringlepower
17th Jul 2010, 09:41
Point taken, I have been repeating my self to much.

Go for the optics Chiktikka, go for the optics!

Uh, sorry.

Irate_Iguana
17th Jul 2010, 11:23
This reminds me how in some very, very old games, "joystick" was translated as "lolstok". That's just wrong. :gamer:

We should petition to make that the official name.

PizzaNo1
17th Jul 2010, 13:33
Go for the optics Chiktikka, go for the optics!

Uh, sorry.

:rolleyes:
Yea. But when someone says someone say dem' bad thing's bout dx1 HULK GO MAD!! Ops... Better get PILLS against my rage :p

tartarus_sauce
17th Jul 2010, 14:42
Just creep up (crouched), until you can't go any further, and jam it in the lower back of the NPC. It's not that hard.

That's what I do. Maybe it's because I have the first release, not the GOTY patched one.

Point being, those execution sequences look awesome. I can't wait.

WildcatPhoenix
17th Jul 2010, 21:07
Point being, those execution sequences look awesome. I can't wait.

But for how long? If you intend to play as a "melee-only" player, are you really going to think these are so awesome after the 1,000th time you see them, on Mission Three?

Fluffis
17th Jul 2010, 21:10
That's what I do. Maybe it's because I have the first release, not the GOTY patched one.


I don't think I had any problems with the unpatched one, but I guess I could be wrong. I lost my original CD a long time ago, so I bought the GOTY.

Fluffis
17th Jul 2010, 21:26
But for how long? If you intend to play as a "melee-only" player, are you really going to think these are so awesome after the 1,000th time you see them, on Mission Three?

This is what I'm worried about as well (well... one of the things I'm worried about ;)). I enjoy playing a "ninja" character in DX from time to time. Having to endure a massive number of what amounts to cutscenes, may turn me off doing it at all in the end.

tartarus_sauce
17th Jul 2010, 22:08
I don't know. Did it bother you in the Splinter Cell sequels watching old Sam do some fancy knifery for the 1000th time? Assassin's Creed?

Fluffis
17th Jul 2010, 22:28
I don't know. Did it bother you in the Splinter Cell sequels watching old Sam do some fancy knifery for the 1000th time? Assassin's Creed?

I only played the first SC, so I can't say anything about that. It definitely bugged me after a short time in AC. I stuck with swords and throwing knives most of the time just because of that scripted stuff. The cutscenes after each murder were worse, though. "Yeah, we left you in the middle of an intense battle scene, to let you have a 5 minute conversation with a dead man. Then you can go back to fighting and running again." I know they were trying to be "deep" with it, but that mechanic bugged the hell out of me.

WildcatPhoenix
17th Jul 2010, 22:33
I don't know. Did it bother you in the Splinter Cell sequels watching old Sam do some fancy knifery for the 1000th time? Assassin's Creed?

In a word?

Yes.

tartarus_sauce
18th Jul 2010, 00:30
No accounting for taste, I suppose. For me, the scripted stabbings were the best part of Assassin's Creed. It was awesome to watch Altair leap into the air and jab his wrist blade into some dude's face.

Anasumtj
18th Jul 2010, 01:25
Which was fine for AC. There are plenty of games where it's a thrill watching my avatar perform fantastic feats with but a press of a button. Some games have to do it. On the other hand, there are games where I like to have a more "hands-on" control. Operation Flashpoint, the original Rainbow Six games, and Deus Ex come to mind. I want my actions to be largely based on my direct input, not to press a key and let the computer take over from that point.

What's annoying among developers is this mindset that the player always needs some kind of reward all the time; in this case, cutscenes. Executing a perfect ninja run in Deus Ex or simply clearing out a room full of guards was always satisfying enough to me. I don't need the game to yank my control away, pat me on the head, and tell me I've done a good job. A third-person takedown animation in DX doesn't really do anything for me except inspire a touch of indignation.

biofuel
18th Jul 2010, 02:36
this is the most retarded thread in all of retarded land

tartarus_sauce
18th Jul 2010, 06:53
Executing a perfect ninja run in Deus Ex or simply clearing out a room full of guards was always satisfying enough to me. I don't need the game to yank my control away, pat me on the head, and tell me I've done a good job. A third-person takedown animation in DX doesn't really do anything for me except inspire a touch of indignation.

But the ninja run is all about position and such. The actual prodding/takedowns were lame and unsatisfying (not to mention frustratingly finnicky). I was always made that me standing right behind someone and knifing him didn't always result in an instant kill. What, did MJ-12 recently make an investment in invisible, impervious throat armor?

Roger Mexico
18th Jul 2010, 09:36
In AC, the emphasis is so much more on tactics and positioning that a scripted takedown is a fitting reward for all the work you've done to get in that position. Plus, the whole game is timed one-button combat anyway.

I suppose HR could make up for the takedowns by letting you scale random buildings and create improvised travel routes that way. (sarcasm yes) FPS combat is about micromanagement, so I can see cam-switching for scripted kills being out of place. And presumably the tactical/movement possibilities are still basically room/corridor based, of course (totally appropriate when the player is focusing on inventory management and aiming).

Incidentally, having a big glaring "go here to complete mission" dot on the map/gps is exactly what was wrong about Assassin's Creed II. I noticed this immediately. It detracted severely from the open-world exploration that made the first one immersive, and it made the expanded sidequests seem like tedious busywork. I doubt my current PC could run HR, so I'll most likely be playing it on a 360--this isn't a console/PC issue. Nothing about a console renders smooth immersion or challenging exploration/problem-solving less desirable.

That said, who is claiming this was a design flaw in the original DX? Half-Life didn't have dialogue instructions or obvious clues for many of its puzzles, either.

pringlepower
18th Jul 2010, 09:57
In AC, the emphasis is so much more on tactics and positioning that a scripted takedown is a fitting reward for all the work you've done to get in that position. Plus, the whole game is timed one-button combat anyway.

I suppose HR could make up for the takedowns by letting you scale random buildings and create improvised travel routes that way. (sarcasm yes) FPS combat is about micromanagement, so I can see cam-switching for scripted kills being out of place. And presumably the tactical/movement possibilities are still basically room/corridor based, of course (totally appropriate when the player is focusing on inventory management and aiming).

Incidentally, having a big glaring "go here to complete mission" dot on the map/gps is exactly what was wrong about Assassin's Creed II. I noticed this immediately. It detracted severely from the open-world exploration that made the first one immersive, and it made the expanded sidequests seem like tedious busywork. I doubt my current PC could run HR, so I'll most likely be playing it on a 360--this isn't a console/PC issue. Nothing about a console renders smooth immersion or challenging exploration/problem-solving less desirable.

That said, who is claiming this was a design flaw in the original DX? Half-Life didn't have dialogue instructions or obvious clues for many of its puzzles, either.

The original AC had objectives on the map too The sidequests in AC were also tedious busywork, given that they were the same thing copied and pasted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

...

...

and over

Fluffis
18th Jul 2010, 10:17
But the ninja run is all about position and such. The actual prodding/takedowns were lame and unsatisfying (not to mention frustratingly finnicky).


Yeah... it's better to just have the computer take care of all that "finnicky" stuff for you, right? So you can just "fire and forget". I know I'm not satisfied, unless I can press a button 30 ft away from the target, and have the computer execute a close-combat kill. :rolleyes:

Deus Ex is not a game which glorifies killing. When it came to combat, it was simply about getting around obstacles. The NPCs were obstacles. Either you used stealth to get around them, or you shot them, stabbed them, bashed their heads in or used one of the non-lethal weapons. It results in a very matter-of-fact way of dealing with killing/subduing. JC is a top, secret agent and his opponents are (mainly) grunts. They just need to be removed, or ignored.

priestcapp
18th Jul 2010, 11:06
to OP: that is such an excellent point that i never even thought of till now despite years of discussing/thinking about this stuff. It helps explain why Deus Ex feels so different from every game since, where dialogue options and cutscenes are the solution to all problems. That rush you felt when you decide to kill Anna for the first time wouldn't be possible if it was presented to you as a clear game option, and certainly not if we watched JC do it in a cutscene. By not showing the decision as a dialogue option the game developers stays invisible, and you're saving lebedev because it *feels right* not because it seems like the writing is suggesting it's the way to go. It becomes *your* choice. And so much of what Deus Ex does right is that feeling of agency, whether you're moving through a level or making big plot decisions.

Anasumtj
18th Jul 2010, 16:53
But the ninja run is all about position and such. The actual prodding/takedowns were lame and unsatisfying (not to mention frustratingly finnicky). I was always made that me standing right behind someone and knifing him didn't always result in an instant kill. What, did MJ-12 recently make an investment in invisible, impervious throat armor?

See, I really don't know why you're listing faults with DX's melee system to me. I don't know why any of you feel the need to bring up the minute gameplay problems of a ten year old title.

Obviously I would have liked to see an improvement over the first game's melee mechanics, which is one of the few things I actually felt IW achieved. I do not want the whole system taken out so I can watch a stupid, condescending, easy-mode cutscene. I still want to retain the hands-on approach and feel of taking down an enemy, only I want it to suck less.

I DON'T WANT ANY GOD DAMN COCKSUCKING ******* TREATS, YOU HEAR ME?!?!??! http://forums.snapstream.com/vb/images/smilies/headbang.gif

pringlepower
18th Jul 2010, 19:37
See, I really don't know why you're listing faults with DX's melee system to me. I don't know why any of you feel the need to bring up the minute gameplay problems of a ten year old title.

Obviously I would have liked to see an improvement over the first game's melee mechanics, which is one of the few things I actually felt IW achieved. I do not want the whole system taken out so I can watch a stupid, condescending, easy-mode cutscene. I still want to retain the hands-on approach and feel of taking down an enemy, only I want it to suck less.

I DON'T WANT ANY GOD DAMN COCKSUCKING ******* TREATS, YOU HEAR ME?!?!??! http://forums.snapstream.com/vb/images/smilies/headbang.gif

Eh, I don't mind.

Anasumtj
18th Jul 2010, 19:53
Then you just beat Deus Ex: Human Revolution: The Anticipation: The Game.

I would not wish such a victory upon even my worst enemy, but it is yours nonetheless. :hmm:

pringlepower
18th Jul 2010, 20:15
Then you just beat Deus Ex: Human Revolution: The Anticipation: The Game.

I would not wish such a victory upon even my worst enemy, but it is yours nonetheless. :hmm:

Eh people have different tastes. My video game tastes are a lot more flexible, and I enjoyed the kills in Assassin's Creed

Roger Mexico
18th Jul 2010, 20:33
The original AC had objectives on the map too The sidequests in AC were also tedious busywork, given that they were the same thing copied and pasted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

...

...

and over

Eh, I liked it. The investigations could have been more varied, I agree. The exploration element seemed more integral in the first one--it felt more like I was dictating the pace and progression of the game. Approaching targets involved more scouting and preparation, unlike ACII where most of the "assassinations" were scripted fights. I was rolling my eyes when I hit the carriage-ride sequence in ACII.

PizzaNo1
18th Jul 2010, 20:56
I don't know. Did it bother you in the Splinter Cell sequels watching old Sam do some fancy knifery for the 1000th time? Assassin's Creed?

Yep!
I got fed fast. Cut-scenes 'broke' the felling of 'doing', and replaced it with 'watching' instead. Thou not a bad game, cut-scenes made it much less fun/challengeing.
Thats the reason I'm not to happy about the take-downs.

Clearly dx:hr has a 'fancy camera movement' code for the cut-scenes activation. I hope there will be a possibly to de-activate that code, still the takedowns will run, but not without leaving the chosen view point.
that will help keeping me 'in' the game/story
at least.

Anasumtj
18th Jul 2010, 21:02
Eh people have different tastes. My video game tastes are a lot more flexible, and I enjoyed the kills in Assassin's Creed

So did I. I too enjoy a wide variety of games.

But AC is not Deus Ex and my expectations for it are very different from most other games if it wants to be a true Deus Ex sequel instead of just a good cyberpunk stealth/action game.

Fluffis
18th Jul 2010, 21:03
Clearly dx:hr has a 'fancy camera movement' code for the cut-scenes activation. I hope there will be a possibly to de-activate that code, still the takedowns will run, but not without leaving the chosen view point.
that will help keeping me 'in' the game/story
at least.

If that's the case, it would definitely soften the blow.

PizzaNo1
18th Jul 2010, 21:47
If that's the case, it would definitely soften the blow.

Absolutely, worst case an intrepid moder will make a nice mod for it.

K^2
18th Jul 2010, 22:45
Clearly dx:hr has a 'fancy camera movement' code for the cut-scenes activation. I hope there will be a possibly to de-activate that code, still the takedowns will run, but not without leaving the chosen view point.
that will help keeping me 'in' the game/story
at least.

I was actually planning to just hijack DirectX calls and modify the view transform on the fly. That way, I can make it work with stereoscopic 3D and head-tracking.

Fluffis
18th Jul 2010, 22:48
Absolutely, worst case an intrepid moder will make a nice mod for it.

I love those intrepid moders.

Mindmute
18th Jul 2010, 23:32
I was actually planning to just hijack DirectX calls and modify the view transform on the fly. That way, I can make it work with stereoscopic 3D and head-tracking.

Won't the takedowns then simply be the character staring blindly at the falling enemy, since the animations were never planned for that view point and therefore will likely only be visible in the 3rd person perspective?

Romeo
18th Jul 2010, 23:32
I love those intrepid moders.
Intrepid modders?
http://www.dragtimes.com/images/11069-2000-Dodge-Intrepid.jpg

Fluffis
18th Jul 2010, 23:34
Intrepid modders?
http://www.dragtimes.com/images/11069-2000-Dodge-Intrepid.jpg

Hehe. Nice one. :D

K^2
19th Jul 2010, 00:55
Won't the takedowns then simply be the character staring blindly at the falling enemy, since the animations were never planned for that view point and therefore will likely only be visible in the 3rd person perspective?
The camera will be tied to Adam's head, so it will essentially be using existing animation. I might have to smooth it a bit, but that wouldn't be difficult to do. Basically, it would be a bit like combat in Mirror's Edge.

Edx
19th Jul 2010, 01:09
oops ignore post

Corpus
19th Jul 2010, 01:09
The camera will be tied to Adam's head, so it will essentially be using existing animation. I might have to smooth it a bit, but that wouldn't be difficult to do. Basically, it would be a bit like combat in Mirror's Edge.

You could pretty much do the same thing Arma does if you remove the head from Adam's model.

K^2
19th Jul 2010, 01:16
You could pretty much do the same thing Arma does if you remove the head from Adam's model.
Shouldn't need to. But we'll see.

Removing head will be a bit tricky. I would rather make it work as is, with only the view transform and skeletal animation (parameter to shader) being intercepted.

I'll be trying it with TRU in the nearest future. I'll probably use the demo version, so that everyone can try it and make suggestions.

Corpus
19th Jul 2010, 01:50
Shouldn't need to. But we'll see.

Removing head will be a bit tricky. I would rather make it work as is, with only the view transform and skeletal animation (parameter to shader) being intercepted.

I'll be trying it with TRU in the nearest future. I'll probably use the demo version, so that everyone can try it and make suggestions.

Will you go as far as making the cut scenes first person?

TrickyVein
19th Jul 2010, 02:53
^^ They would have to be rendered in-game for that to work; All of the cinematic cut-scenes in TRU were rendered beforehand (http://www.sra-art.com/1_Underworld_Lght.html). That doesn't mean that DX3's cut-scenes will also be pre-rendered...we'll have to see.

K^2
19th Jul 2010, 04:52
Will you go as far as making the cut scenes first person?
I'll try to make that optional, or at least have a toggle key, but I might have no way to distinguish between a cut scene and gameplay. In that case, you'll have to toggle these yourself if you prefer them in 3rd person.

By default, once you enable the program, everything will be in first person. Dialogs, cut scenes, stealth, take-downs, ladder climbing, and anything else they might throw at you. As long as Adam is present in the level, it should be forced to his perspective.

Any states I can actually distinguish between on the fly, I'll have individual settings for.

Fluffis
19th Jul 2010, 10:06
I'll try to make that optional, or at least have a toggle key, but I might have no way to distinguish between a cut scene and gameplay. In that case, you'll have to toggle these yourself if you prefer them in 3rd person.

By default, once you enable the program, everything will be in first person. Dialogs, cut scenes, stealth, take-downs, ladder climbing, and anything else they might throw at you. As long as Adam is present in the level, it should be forced to his perspective.

Any states I can actually distinguish between on the fly, I'll have individual settings for.

You're making me salivate slightly.

Oakatsura-Metametheus
20th Jul 2010, 07:56
Deus Ex is unique for its abilities that at the time were almost unheard of, it was probably the first FPS / RPG that hit the market and has forever scarred a image of what games should look and feel like if it becomes a FPS / RPG. There were many decisions that had an effect on the game but ultimately most of the decisions were going to happen no matter what you did, Nevarre was gonna die. You just had a lot of different points, times, and ways to do it. Shoot her in the plane, get her kill phrase and detonate her, kill her in the hall in UNATCO. which in turn led Gunther to attempt to kick your fanny. It also had upgradabilities to your character that went beyond a level of gameplay that most people were used to, there was more than dialog and story decisions, but a level of player, weapon, and upgrade customization that gave us a huge idealism for how we liked to play our own characters.

Deus Ex 2 didnt really hold too much of the same concepts as one which makes me wonder how they are planning the development of HR. Considering 2 had less upgradability, less weapon dynamics, and lesser customizable features that really drew away the crowd, it stands as a monument for when games can go seriously wrong which worries me a little bit for the development of HR. Had Eidos kept Deus Ex 2 about as good, if not quite as good as the first a lot of sighs and misconceptions about how the development of HR would probably be overridden by the fact that they had done 2 outstanding jobs on games. However this cannot be said, so we have to sit and wait and see what the final product looks to be like.

Though from a look at the game as it is now:
The concept looks faboulous its now more of a question of the setting, before Deus Ex 1 or After the events of 2 where they kinda let the digital god rule... consdering the level of technology, and time settings I'd say Helios is out and about.
The graphics look sweat.
The level of customization that has been already presented sounds intriguing.
And the screenshots from how the game looks to feel gives me a chill, since I always love to play as the sneaky sniper / assassin that sneaks in and either picks someone off from a distance or levels a shotgun at point blank range, and then slips back into the shadows as everyone goes WTF?

GhostofaMessiah
2nd Aug 2010, 13:23
artifex0:

This may be one of the odder (I'm really restraining myself here) things I have read on these forums. Telling you everything beforehand is "good game design"? Actually letting you figure things out yourself, and choose based on your own psychology and philosophy (or the way you think JC would act) is "very bad game design"?

There is the essence of something called role play. don't your time with these kids dude. They're weird.

ArthurBatusich
2nd Aug 2010, 18:05
For me, the best camera is DX1's, because it is simple, but perfect...
For me the game has got to be fun, not just perfect, with realistic graphics, and physics, etc... Just needs to be fun...

deus ex fan
4th Aug 2010, 21:48
without doubt,DX1 was and still is an example of state-of-the-art game design.It was and still is a very deep computer videogame.

Neveos
5th Aug 2010, 11:44
I agree with the OP, and you get these sort of situations where there is a level playing field between the friendly/unfriendly NPCs and the player, trio. So situations like these actually occur in Fallout 3 and Oblivion because the player-peices are all bound by the same rules, your peice is just controlled by you, and the other peices are just controlled by a set of dispositions (an AI). Whenever the enemies and the friendlies and the player all become very distinct, they become very static, removing the challenge of changing their dispositions. It is more or less, the pleasure of AI interaction that the OP is referring to.

While Mass Effect may be a good game, it fails in this aspect because all friendlies are indestructible, all enemies are an unrelatable blur, and the player squad is simply there for good measure. You never really have the threat of an unintended **** storm of everything going hostile, nor do you really prevent hostiles from becoming hostile.

H.D.Case
6th Aug 2010, 19:53
Oh yeah, I remember that I was REALLY pissed at Navarre's behaviour, because I wanted to hear the whole story by Lebedev, I was really into the plot, so I just started shooting at her, just like that! And the Jacobson's message just right after it - the game felt SO good just because of THAT!