PDA

View Full Version : Deus Ex was "overly complicated and deeply flawed"?



Shralla
18th Jul 2010, 06:27
The Escapist seems to think so.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/7823-Epic-Mickey-Warren-Spectors-Epic-Gamble.2
(once you get past this discussion, you should read the rest, it's pretty good)


Who would believe that Spector, a veteran of the infamously bombastic Ion Storm - whose biggest hit was the overly-complex and deeply flawed Deus Ex - was telling the truth; that Hollywood studios were actually lining up at his door to shower him with cash? Who would believe that Hollywood was turning sour on the silver screen? Or that Spector, one of the most mild-mannered developers you'll ever meet, would be the future of gaming?

Well first, I'd like to say... Really? Is this really what the general gaming public thinks of Deus Ex? I mean, obviously Deus Ex had its shortcomings, but to sum up its entirety as being "deeply flawed"? I don't think that ANY of the issues were anywhere NEAR that bad, to be honest with you. And "overly complex"? I played Deus Ex when I was in middle school with no issues. I don't really see what they're getting at here. What do you guys think?

Secondly, I'm pretty ******* sure that ALL OF US knew Warren Spector was the future of gaming. Deus Ex made it pretty obvious, I think.

pringlepower
18th Jul 2010, 06:37
This thread "overly stupid and deeply useless"?
The man has an opinion, get over it. He doesn't represent the entire site and plenty of Escapist writers think that DE is a great and classic game. And Spector's not God.

Shralla
18th Jul 2010, 07:04
You're right, I should have just made another thread complaining about how terrible the new game looks. I forgot that discussion wasn't allowed unless it's about burning Dugas an effigy.

hem dazon 90
18th Jul 2010, 07:09
It was flawed but still it's complication (for the most part) was one of it's strengths.


But the escapist sucks anyway.

pringlepower
18th Jul 2010, 07:27
It was flawed but still it's complication (for the most part) was one of it's strengths.


But the escapist sucks anyway.

It's good for yatzhee. He relieves stress.

And yeah sorry Shralla, go on.

JC_Phoenix
18th Jul 2010, 09:13
You considered Deus Ex to be overly complex and deeply flawed?

I did, yes. Also, so does Warren Spector (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/70899-Next-Gen-Storytelling-Part-Two-How-Do-We-Tell-Stories-in-Games), as he wrote for us several years ago (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/70899-Next-Gen-Storytelling-Part-Two-How-Do-We-Tell-Stories-in-Games), and as I quoted in the above article.:


Too much choice is a scary thing, capable of paralyzing people. (As I learned to my chagrin on Deus Ex!)

Perhaps "deeply" flawed is an overstatement, but not by much.

Granted I haven't played the game over and over like you have, and the last time I played it was in 2001 or so, but I found the game's assertion of open-endedness and unrestricted player agency to be broken past a certain point. Once it became clear to me that a lot of the "choice" was an illusion and that the game would play out how it was written to play out regardless of your actions, I lost interest.

That said, it was a milestone of game design, and considering there weren't a lot of games made in 2001 that broke as much new ground as <i>Deus Ex</i>, I can see why it garnered so many GOTY accolades. But it's not a perfect game.

I feel I'm on pretty safe ground espousing this opinion considering it's shared by the creator ;)

My reply to him; if I felt the need to reply to that would be that:
it wasn't feeling like the game was going to turn out a different way that made Deus Ex so great and replayable. It was all of those little changes, hidden pieces of dialogue you could still have never heard after playing the game 20 times and trying to do it different each time. It's all oft hat attention to detail that makes Deus Ex so great, and why so many of us see it as something much the opposite of a "flaw"

super...
18th Jul 2010, 09:35
Watching one of my friends play deus ex has enlightened me a bit. ultimately the game has things that simply do not fly in today's world. They are not even the things your thinking of.

Take skill points, the method they are presented in deus ex means it's incredibly easy for players to miss that they even exist. while i'm sure some of you have done a no skill run it's not what i would call a great time for a new player.

Fluffis
18th Jul 2010, 09:51
Take skill points, the method they are presented in deus ex means it's incredibly easy for players to miss that they even exist. while i'm sure some of you have done a no skill run it's not what i would call a great time for a new player.

Easy to miss?
A big window in the middle of the screen, where you have a portrait with arrows beneath it, a place to type your name and a set of skills, with two large buttons beneath them that say "Upgrade" and "Downgrade" and a square that says "Skill Points"?

That's not something wrong with the game. That's something wrong with how that person has learned to play games.

If you see that window at the start, and don't see the need to experiment, then Deus Ex is probably not the game for you, at all.

Daedalus Ciarán
18th Jul 2010, 11:33
I bought and completed DX when I was 12. Overly complicated? **** no. If too much choice is daunting then real life must be pretty terrifying for those people that couldn't handle DX! Deeply flawed? Maybe there's an argument that DX's action section was flawed to a certain extent, but then again, the combat was supposed to be 'flawed' at the start to force you to consider other options in approaching missions.

So no I wouldn't agree with that at all. And if Spector said much the same I think he's selling himself and the game short in a big big way.

Dead-Eye
18th Jul 2010, 13:00
The game was undoubtedly difficult. I have seen people fail the tutorial more times then not and I would probably say that the first map is the hardest part in the game. Yet isn't that why it's such a good game?

Take System Shock 2 for example. You had crazy ass zombies with shotguns and killer robots running around spawning randomly that would mess you up. You also had to deal with things like guns jamming on you at exactly the wrong time and the necessity to buy bullets even when everyone on the ship was dead. However if all that stuff was removed to make the game more assessable to a wider audience... I.E. Bioshock. The end result is the game is no longer scary and the fun factor is decreased.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
18th Jul 2010, 13:15
It was flawed but still it's complication (for the most part) was one of it's strengths.


But the escapist sucks anyway.

Deux Ex complicated? :lol:

Wow, what low opinions you have of the game playing public in 2010.

mad_red
18th Jul 2010, 14:07
Too much choice is a scary thing, capable of paralyzing people. (As I learned to my chagrin on Deus Ex!)




Once it became clear to me that a lot of the "choice" was an illusion and that the game would play out how it was written to play out regardless of your actions, I lost interest.

Hard to please some people, eh Goldilocks? Can't handle too much choice, won't be happy with too little.

As for me, give me all the choice in the world! I still enjoy a good script with a passing interest, but it can never compare to a web of fully fleshed out possibilities. Paralysis is for old pandas!

super...
18th Jul 2010, 20:51
Easy to miss?
A big window in the middle of the screen, where you have a portrait with arrows beneath it, a place to type your name and a set of skills, with two large buttons beneath them that say "Upgrade" and "Downgrade" and a square that says "Skill Points"?

That's not something wrong with the game. That's something wrong with how that person has learned to play games.



i know this person has at least missed the skill point screen twice, he even told me once that he wished the game had skill points. and he plays a whole lot of american rpgs and jrpgs.

You know how lame it is to blame the audience. I mean your never going to make something that works for everyone but this kid IS the audience for deus ex.

Deus ex is great but its age shows.

Fluffis
18th Jul 2010, 21:01
i know this person has at least missed the skill point screen twice, he even told me once that he wished the game had skill points. and he plays a whole lot of american rpgs and jrpgs.


What...? You really mean he missed the character "creation" screen? It's the first thing that pops up when you start a new game!



You know how lame it is to blame the audience. I mean your never going to make something that works for everyone but this kid IS the audience for deus ex.


Well, obviously he isn't. Deus Ex is a game where "trying things out" is how you succeed. Just tell the guy to RTFM.



Deus ex is great but its age shows.

I can't even begin to understand how a kid missing the character creation screen at the start of the game, can be translated into Deus Ex being too old.

You're actually starting to scare me with this example of how hand-holding has gotten so common in modern games.

Anasumtj
18th Jul 2010, 21:24
i know this person has at least missed the skill point screen twice, he even told me once that he wished the game had skill points. and he plays a whole lot of american rpgs and jrpgs.

You know how lame it is to blame the audience. I mean your never going to make something that works for everyone but this kid IS the audience for deus ex.

Deus ex is great but its age shows.

If this kid missed the character creation screen and didn't have the sense to even look through his in-game menus to discover the Skill pane, then... no. I think it's safe to say he is not the target audience for Deus Ex, and god forbid he ever will be.

I understand that DX never really screamed "HEY BUDDY, GO SPEND YOUR ******* SKILL POINTS, YOU HAVE LIKE 500 OF 'EM" like some games would be tempted to do today. But you really can't blame the game for such a lack of player attention. I started my brother off on DX (after he finally expressed interest in it after hearing me wax about it endlessly), and while it remains to be seen how his mileage will fare with it, he at least managed to understand things like that. And he's not exactly somebody with a deep personal history with sims, RPGs, or anything much more complex than your average third-person fighting game or FPS.

I don't know what any of that has to do with Deus Ex being an aged title. I don't need to be reminded that a ten year old game is, in fact, old. But here it seems like you're employing it as an excuse for the player's abject failure to pay attention or even show some curiosity. Deus Ex had its flaws, but surely this was not one of them.

Pinky_Powers
18th Jul 2010, 21:25
As I've said in earlier posts, I never even ran through the Training Mission until this year. I've been playing Deus Ex since 2000, and I learned how to handle this "overly complicated" game without so much as a tutorial. Every portion of its mechanics were rather intuitive, actually.

A Lockpick will open a locked door. A Multitool... never heard of those. But it's clearly a "tool", so... Oh! Look! It works against electronic things! A computer terminal... hmm... no password. But there's a clearly-marked function to Hack it, right there.

Deus Ex was fairly easy to learn. But it did require you to learn it. And it was always fun! If the base notion of "learning" suddenly makes a thing "overly complicated" for certain people... that's probably not something they should advertise.

super...
18th Jul 2010, 21:25
I picked the skill presentation because it's a simple problem to fix without any compromises. simply just present it better.

games are an entertainment product. it's only natural that the people making it want more people to like what they make. so if that means presenting gameplay in a method that is easy to understand i see nothing wrong with that "hand holding".

Fluffis
18th Jul 2010, 21:43
I picked the skill presentation because it's a simple problem to fix without any compromises. simply just present it better.

games are an entertainment product. it's only natural that the people making it want more people to like what they make. so if that means presenting gameplay in a method that is easy to understand i see nothing wrong with that "hand holding".

I can't really see an easier way to present something, than a window that takes up half of the screen at the start of a new game.

Could have added some neon arrows and a sign that says "Here Be Skills!!!", I suppose.

super...
18th Jul 2010, 22:03
there are a number of better ways. j rpgs are great at this kind of thing. they layer the games complexity over the first few hours of play making sure to introduce new elements in a clear and understandable manner.

I mean if the goal of skills to to build a unique character during play why front load so many skill choices before the game even starts?

AaronJ
18th Jul 2010, 22:04
I started Deus Ex when I was seven. It is not overly complicated.

But man, the spy drone pissed me the **** off.

PizzaNo1
18th Jul 2010, 22:14
I can't really see an easier way to present something, than a window that takes up half of the screen at the start of a new game.

Could have added some neon arrows and a sign that says "Here Be Skills!!!", I suppose.

And a loud voice screaming 'push it to see skills!!'

I must say if this kid really missed something that is so *obvious* as the skill screen, I mean thats saying 'I want to drive to work today, but I cant find my car!' While standing in front of it. And what you are asking for is ' blinking neonlights for all cars so we can see the cars'.
The kid you are talking about has no experience playing PC games, and is probably trying to play 'console style' encourage him to slow down an look more closely instead.

Fluffis
18th Jul 2010, 22:18
there are a number of better ways. j rpgs are great at this kind of thing. they layer the games complexity over the first few hours of play making sure to introduce new elements in a clear and understandable manner.


That's not necessarily a better way. It's just different.
Me, I'm partial to the "Into the Deep End" thing. It forces you to learn quickly, in order to survive. It adds intensity to the game and when things go from "bad" to "worse", you're prepared for it.

DX is not the kind of game where you're supposed to feel on top of everything. You're supposed to feel like you're in completely over your head, from the start - because you are in over your head. You have to struggle to even stay alive - either by shooting and popping medikits like they're candy, or taking your time by sneaking around things.



I mean if the goal of skills to to build a unique character during play why front load so many skill choices before the game even starts?

RPG convention. That's how any ordinary PnP RPG works. You get a couple of skills to start with, but you can choose them from a variety of different skills. Then it starts to differ between games. Either you continue to build up the ones you have, you get new ones all the time or a combination of the two.

In most PnP RPGs you have a ****load of skills to select from. Far, far more than in DX.

Ashbery76
18th Jul 2010, 22:28
Back in the day no reviews said the game was over complicated.It just shows the effect of the console dumb down of recent times.

K^2
18th Jul 2010, 22:57
I can see a point of view that DX was overly complex.

I can see a point of view that it was flawed.

But if you call it both, you either have schizophrenia, or you say stuff without thinking it through first. In either case, you are off your rocker.

xsamitt
18th Jul 2010, 23:47
Now this is just my opinion.But in all honestly if anyone truly believes DX1 was deeply flawed maybe they could stand to look at it from the standpoint that perhaps DX1 was so close to reality in certain aspects that is perhaps the reason why it appears flawed,as opposed to other games that weren't so realistic thereby keeping the flaws less apparent.Kinda like a telescope can see the creators on the moon so much better than the naked eye.I believe DX1 was a victim of itself in some ways it was so good.

JC_Phoenix
19th Jul 2010, 01:13
Hard to please some people, eh Goldilocks? Can't handle too much choice, won't be happy with too little.

As for me, give me all the choice in the world! I still enjoy a good script with a passing interest, but it can never compare to a web of fully fleshed out possibilities. Paralysis is for old pandas!Just to clarify, and be sure... You know the first quote you put was Warren Spector, right?

jtr7
19th Jul 2010, 02:08
More options guarantees less polish and still never come close to the number of possibilities thousands of people will think up and wish for. If it's a story game, then the story has to be focused. Expecting all the readables, sequences and AI placements for scenarios and conversations, and having all the voice-acting, etc., for more options, gets out of hand very fast. More means more flaws or more time and money needed to reign in the problems.

pringlepower
19th Jul 2010, 02:21
More options guarantees less polish and still never come close to the number of possibilities thousands of people will think up and wish for. If it's a story game, then the story has to be focused. Expecting all the readables, sequences and AI placements for scenarios and conversations, and having all the voice-acting, etc., for more options, gets out of hand very fast. More means more flaws or more time and money needed to reign in the problems.

So you, in a Deus Ex forum, are saying that we need less options and extra bits. Interesting.

And good voice acting is lovely because it really breaks immersion to walk into the 2050s version of Hong Kong and find everyone's been replaced by stereotypes. I'd better get my family out of there before it happens.

super...
19th Jul 2010, 04:41
That's not necessarily a better way. It's just different.
Me, I'm partial to the "Into the Deep End" thing. It forces you to learn quickly, in order to survive. It adds intensity to the game and when things go from "bad" to "worse", you're prepared for it.

DX is not the kind of game where you're supposed to feel on top of everything.

RPG convention. That's how any ordinary PnP RPG works.

In most PnP RPGs you have a ****load of skills to select from. Far, far more than in DX.

I kind of feels like your grasping, character confusion and player confusion are very different things. it's ok to feel deus ex shows it's age. I mean look at the graphics, it's clearly an old game, why should game design be stuck in the same place? It's great but it's clearly a product of its time, like everything else.

I would read Warren Spector’s deus ex postmortem for a better perspective on what he wanted from the game and why he included things like skills.

The skill system was actually fairly weak in the original deus ex. Most skills simply made a character more resource efficient and simply did not serve the "playstyle matters" concepts the game put forth. A better system would have opened up new ways of solving problems.

I remember the first time i took someone down with a head shot with a stealth pistol, it felt great because that was a solution i did not have before. Opposed to the lock picking and electronics skills that felt like paying taxes every time i put points into them.

It sounds like we may get a solutions based skill system like this in DX HR.

MaxxQ1
19th Jul 2010, 06:42
I kind of feels like your grasping, character confusion and player confusion are very different things. it's ok to feel deus ex shows it's age. I mean look at the graphics, it's clearly an old game, why should game design be stuck in the same place? It's great but it's clearly a product of its time, like everything else.

Bad example to back up your argument. The graphics were outdated even before DX was released.

Irate_Iguana
19th Jul 2010, 06:56
it's ok to feel deus ex shows it's age. I mean look at the graphics, it's clearly an old game, why should game design be stuck in the same place? It's great but it's clearly a product of its time, like everything else.

DX definitely shows its age and there are a number of improvements that could easily be made. However, looking at popular titles today I can't really see that much evolution in gameplay. For some odd reason the graphics advanced over these past ten years, but there hasn't been that much of an increase in gameplay. AI is still relatively dumb across the board even in titles commended for their smart AI. Decent squad level tactics aren't implemented. Dialog has actually regressed in many games. The only thing I can think of that actually changed is sticky cover.

super...
19th Jul 2010, 07:38
Really? While deus ex was really ahead of it's time there are a number of areas that have advanced past what it was doing.
environmental story telling has made huge improvements (portal and mirrors edge)
while rare there are a few games with really great dialog systems (i like hotel dusk and phoenix wright)
i mean sand box games are huge these days

None of these games do everything deus ex did but they are all doing some things better then it.

deus ex is great but it shows it's age.

maikaal
19th Jul 2010, 08:16
Wow, so many geniuses here who 'played Deus Ex at age of 7 and found it easy' my ass. You can't deny that Deus Ex is a game that takes time and patience to get in to, even if you're a gaming genius as you claim. And it's easy to miss things in it, yes even the skills upgrade window. But it takes imbecility to call Deus Ex deeply flawed, of course.

pringlepower
19th Jul 2010, 08:20
Wow, so many geniuses here who 'played Deus Ex at age of 7 and found it easy' my ass. You can't deny that Deus Ex is a game that takes time and patience to get in to, even if you're a gaming genius as you claim. And it's easy to miss things in it, yes even the skills upgrade window. But it takes imbecility to call Deus Ex deeply flawed, of course.

It is deeply flawed. Likewise vanilla chocolate chip ice cream is deeply flawed, yet delicious.

Shralla
19th Jul 2010, 08:27
It forces you to allocate skill points in the beginning of the game with literally no way to max out any of them at the time. I can't even being to imagine how somebody WOULDN'T know that there was a skill system, especially with the sweet little noise that plays ever time you get some.

Irate_Iguana
19th Jul 2010, 09:13
environmental story telling has made huge improvements (portal and mirrors edge)

Not really sure what you mean with this. I played Portal and it was a fun little puzzle game. The biggest gameplay change it had was making use of those portals. Great innovation and one of the few games in recent years that actually changed something.



while rare there are a few games with really great dialog systems (i like hotel dusk and phoenix wright)

Haven't played either of those games so I'll take your word for it. But do you agree that these types of games are in the minority? Most games don't aim for better dialog or at least fall short. That is not to say that DX had brilliant dialog, but more that the focus of the industry is not on that.



i mean sand box games are huge these days

Played a few sandbox games and it is mostly a gimmick. Very nice that you can ride around a huge city, but it doesn't actually change anything about the gameplay. The specific missions you are going to do are still pretty restricted and outside those missions there isn't a hell of a lot to do.

Fluffis
19th Jul 2010, 10:01
None of these games do everything deus ex did but they are all doing some things better then it.


And there we have something that has confounded people (gamers and reviewers) since the days of the release of DX. No games since, have managed to do everything DX did. A lot of games are better in one or two areas, but none have come close to the the sheer complexity of DX, relative to games at the time when it was released.

Like has been said: the graphics were several years "dated" when DX was released. You know what the effect of that was? That DX fit onto one single CD. And even with that level of graphics, that was impressive. Compare it to Baldur's Gate, for instance: 5 CD:s (!), and that came out two years earlier.



I kind of feels like your grasping, character confusion and player confusion are very different things. it's ok to feel deus ex shows it's age. I mean look at the graphics, it's clearly an old game, why should game design be stuck in the same place? It's great but it's clearly a product of its time, like everything else.


A lot of games have done better in certain areas since, but none have gone for the gusto and beat it in every way. This is something that truly, genuinely puzzles me. If gaming had evolved as much as some people claim, there would be at least one game out there that was "The New Deus Ex", but so far I have never even seen a reviewer use that phrase about a game (apart from IW, for obvious reasons), and be even close to right about it.



I would read Warren Spector’s deus ex postmortem for a better perspective on what he wanted from the game and why he included things like skills.


I have read it, and I can't really see the support for your comments in there. After Gabe Newell pointed out the flaws in the first skill system, they came up with one they were happy with. The one that is present in the game now.

I've also seen the post mortem with Harvey Smith. I think they are selling themselves short on a couple of points, for instance the overlapping of skills and augs. Those overlaps are in fact stacking. Swimming skill combined with Aqualung increases your lung capacity even further, and you increase your movement speed underwater. In some things, I think they have listened too much to reactions by some players. My own experience: In the Paris Catacombs, I usually spend a lot of time in the water-filled tunnel, while taking out the MJ12 troops. It suits my play style. It would have been a lot more difficult, if the aug and the skill didn't function together.

While diving for a short time, I don't activate aqualung and thus save bio-e cells. If I'm going to be down there longer, I use the aug as well. At the underwater laboratory I can take out all the divers before entering, without coming up for air. These things do make a difference. It's all about if you want to use the resources you were given.



The skill system was actually fairly weak in the original deus ex. Most skills simply made a character more resource efficient and simply did not serve the "playstyle matters" concepts the game put forth. A better system would have opened up new ways of solving problems.


You mean like... I don't know... Hacking computers/security systems? Opening locks? Turning off alarms? Finding alternate routes and making them a viable option, speed-wise (swimming)? It may not feel like it, but as you get more resource efficient, you are actually opening up new ways of solving problems, because you can do those things at will, instead of being forced to hunt for resources.



I remember the first time i took someone down with a head shot with a stealth pistol, it felt great because that was a solution i did not have before. Opposed to the lock picking and electronics skills that felt like paying taxes every time i put points into them.


You don't think the difference in resource management of having to use 6 lockpicks or 2 is worth it? That's hardly the game's fault, is it? Without any points in Electronics or Lockpicking, you can run out of resources really quickly, if you're unlucky. Then you may be forced into a play style that you're not aiming for.

mad_red
19th Jul 2010, 10:22
Just to clarify, and be sure... You know the first quote you put was Warren Spector, right?

Yeah mate. First I quoted you, then I saw that wasn't right and changed it to Russ pitts, then after I looked at the whole thing it again, and finally was like, meh screw it :mad2:

maikaal
19th Jul 2010, 10:28
It is deeply flawed.

Ok, how exactly was it deeply flawed then? Deus Ex was probably the most tested game ever. I can see some minor imbalances here and there, depending on the style of gameplay you choose, but to call it deeply flawed? that's bit of an overstatement.

super...
19th Jul 2010, 10:58
environmental storytelling is when the environment tells a story. Portal did this very very well. i mean look at what an icon the companion cube became. Think back, did any character or cut seen say "the cake is a lie" nope it was the environment.

mirror's edge also hid some of it's best story points in the world around the player. the original deus ex did a fairly good job at this, reading books and hacking were great but the strictly text presentation is a little weak. i think the new deus ex is handling computers better by keeping player's peripheral vision around the monitor, i hope something similar is used for books.

ultimately this kind of storytelling is very important for video games because it's something games do much better then books or moves and does not interrupt game play.

i think we have yet to see another game like deus ex because IW did not do that well, and because developing 4 games in one is likely a hard sell to the publishers. It blows my mind to hear people say they picked deus ex just to make money off of it's incredibly jilted fan base.

Fluffis
19th Jul 2010, 11:17
ultimately this kind of storytelling is very important for video games because it's something games do much better then books or moves and does not interrupt game play.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but movies have been doing this for decades. It's a staple for horror movies, for instance.

super...
19th Jul 2010, 11:37
sure movies and books do it, i like it more in games though.

Irate_Iguana
19th Jul 2010, 12:05
environmental storytelling is when the environment tells a story. Portal did this very very well. i mean look at what an icon the companion cube became. Think back, did any character or cut seen say "the cake is a lie" nope it was the environment.

Oh, that. To me that went a long way in making the Aperture Science testing facility something more than just a number of loosely connected puzzle rooms. More games could benefit from that type of world interaction to make the world more believable.

Pretentious Old Man.
19th Jul 2010, 12:36
I notice they don't trouble to say why it's deeply flawed...

I can see why someone with a background in FPSes of the era might have been annoyed at the shooting stuff. Personally, since I was coming at it from an RPG background and always treated it as an RPG, I was less fussed. I remember, coming from Baldur's Gate and Planescape to Deus Ex always being pleased at being involved in the action. I guess if you were a hardcore Half-Life fan, you might find the shooting mediocre...

...But that's missing the point.

xsamitt
19th Jul 2010, 12:47
I notice they don't trouble to say why it's deeply flawed...

I can see why someone with a background in FPSes of the era might have been annoyed at the shooting stuff. Personally, since I was coming at it from an RPG background and always treated it as an RPG, I was less fussed. I remember, coming from Baldur's Gate and Planescape to Deus Ex always being pleased at being involved in the action. I guess if you were a hardcore Half-Life fan, you might find the shooting mediocre...

...But that's missing the point.

Agreed,I do believe that DX3 seeks to make it more balanced in that regard.But not so much as to take away from what it means to make a DX title.We shall see in time.

Great_Ragnarok
19th Jul 2010, 14:03
What was complicated about it? my only complaint is that it's not complicated enough.
The skill system for example was far too simple.It's a canon fact, that all of JC's nerves are augmented.
That is they had created a premise so that JC could gain skill/experience points for everything he did.
for getting headshots, for sneaking around and knocking people unconscious.
but instead you only got points for exploring areas and finishing missions.

luminar
19th Jul 2010, 15:43
Wow, so many geniuses here who 'played Deus Ex at age of 7 and found it easy' my ass. You can't deny that Deus Ex is a game that takes time and patience to get in to, even if you're a gaming genius as you claim. And it's easy to miss things in it, yes even the skills upgrade window. But it takes imbecility to call Deus Ex deeply flawed, of course.

Me and my brother played the hell out of the demo disc we stole when we were like 12 and 8. Seriously some of my best gaming memories are based off that demo disc.

Shralla
19th Jul 2010, 17:46
Sorry to burst your bubble, but movies have been doing this for decades. It's a staple for horror movies, for instance.

Yeah, but in movies it isn't a reward for personally taking the time and effort to look around and explore your environment. In movies, they show it, and either you catch it or you don't. In games, you might not even SEE it, never mind "catch" it.

Anasumtj
19th Jul 2010, 17:59
environmental storytelling is when the environment tells a story. Portal did this very very well. i mean look at what an icon the companion cube became. Think back, did any character or cut seen say "the cake is a lie" nope it was the environment.

Okay, the companion cube was a funny little joke, but to compare that to the kind of simulated world you got in Deus Ex is just silly.

Fluffis
19th Jul 2010, 18:00
Yeah, but in movies it isn't a reward for personally taking the time and effort to look around and explore your environment. In movies, they show it, and either you catch it or you don't. In games, you might not even SEE it, never mind "catch" it.

There have been many, many movies over the decades that have used "blink and you'll miss it" scenery, often including a spooky/hilarious phrase on a wall, or similar. It's gotten even more popular since the rise of the DVD, when people can pause with a perfect still image.

So, it is in fact (more or less) the same way as in a game, in surprisingly many movies.

Anasumtj
19th Jul 2010, 18:05
Right...

But I think we can all agree that most games don't employ such techniques and instead cram any kind of story or exposition down your throat with a hammed fist, likely with gratuitous cutscenes. So it's refreshing that games are starting to realize the potential of letting their worlds communicate story to the player.

Fluffis
19th Jul 2010, 18:29
Right...

But I think we can all agree that most games don't employ such techniques and instead cram any kind of story or exposition down your throat with a hammed fist, likely with gratuitous cutscenes. So it's refreshing that games are starting to realize the potential of letting their worlds communicate story to the player.

To make it clear about the concept of Environmental Storytelling:
Whenever you play a game, and you read something on a wall, in a book, see something on a screen, hear something on a radio. That's Environmental Storytelling. This, we have already covered.

However:
Any time you play an FPS, for instance, and run into a room with dead bodies and blown up equipment, maybe walls with bullet holes or pieces missing... that's also Environmental Storytelling. Something has happened here, and you are probably about to experience what, or it's up to you to find out. E.g. In Half-Life, when you get your first taste of what a "Headcrab" does, it's sitting dormant (possibly dead) on a corpse's head.

When you walk onto a screen in an old-style Lucasarts game, or similar, and see something that has happened before, and possibly indicates where you should go, this is also Environmental Storytelling (like the case of "Shish-KaBob", "Shish-KaJoe" and "Shish-KaLarry", in Monkey Island.)

From those examples, it's not hard to deduce that computer games have used this technique ever since graphics started to become relatively clear and detailed.

Shralla
19th Jul 2010, 21:20
So, it is in fact (more or less) the same way as in a game, in surprisingly many movies.

It's not even remotely the same. The experience is completely different.

pringlepower
19th Jul 2010, 21:37
Ok, how exactly was it deeply flawed then? Deus Ex was probably the most tested game ever. I can see some minor imbalances here and there, depending on the style of gameplay you choose, but to call it deeply flawed? that's bit of an overstatement.

The combat's pretty flawed, the hacking, picking, multitooling is just click and forget with no user input, voice acting ranges from cheesy to ridiculous, a lot of the stealth amounts to quickloading after being found (as opposed to Thief, or Commandos where you had better sense of where the enemies were looking), graphics were dated even in 2000.

Anyways vanilla chocolate chip ice cream is high in fat, sugar, and doesn't provide nearly enough calcium, but it's still deeply enjoyable in many ways.

Fluffis
19th Jul 2010, 21:38
It's not even remotely the same. The experience is completely different.

Of course the experience is different. One of them is interactive, the other isn't. In a movie, something like that has to be in shot, or it doesn't exist in the movie's universe. That's the difference in experience. In a movie you can only miss it if you close your eyes.

However: the technique, and the thought behind it, isn't different. Neither is the result of seeing it.

Fluffis
19th Jul 2010, 21:51
The combat's pretty flawed


Explanation, please.



the hacking, picking, multitooling is just click and forget with no user input,


Try starting to pick or tool, and then turn around.



voice acting ranges from cheesy to ridiculous,


Says you. I think it ranges from "Pretty Badass" to "Ridiculous"



a lot of the stealth amounts to quickloading after being found


If that's the way you play it. There is another way, you know... Keep playing, and salvage what you can. You don't have to quickload, just because you can.



graphics were dated even in 2000.


One (1), count them: one, CD.
I can't think of many games that manage to even come close to packing in a game as large as DX on such a small space (proportionally).

pringlepower
19th Jul 2010, 22:23
Explanation, please.



Try starting to pick or tool, and then turn around.



Says you. I think it ranges from "Pretty Badass" to "Ridiculous"



If that's the way you play it. There is another way, you know... Keep playing, and salvage what you can. You don't have to quickload, just because you can.



One (1), count them: one, CD.
I can't think of many games that manage to even come close to packing in a game as large as DX on such a small space (proportionally).

Combat: dumb AI, dumb aiming with weapon skill progression (especially in the beginning). In general, poor FPS mechanics.

Locks, tools: well yeah if you turn around you stop. But, and especially for hacking, you just clicked and it happened (with hacking actually making you invisible to everyone around you - and you can hack anything at level 1 computers, just the ICE breaker takes longer, which really only matters if you're reading e-mails). I would've preferred something along the lines of Fallout 3 or Alpha Protocol's hacking minigames (NOT Mass Effect 2. ugh).

Voices: The ridiculous is the majority though, especially in HK and Paris. Now I know this was back when games didn't have huge budgets, but stuff like Grim Fandango and MGS had excellent VOs

Stealth: Okay I put it poorly, I usually go along with being discovered, etc. I would've preferred some better stealth mechanics though, like an earlier aug that showed guard sight. Cloak and Radar Invisibility don't really add to stealth, they more defeat the purpose of the entire system.

Once CD: that's not really an positive for the graphics, even if it is a technological achievements. Having 2 CDs and better graphics (especially those character models) wouldn't be so bad

Anyways hopefully you don't think I'm a DX hater or anything, just for me the game's achievements in openness and a deep, intelligently-built world helped me ignore its more gaping flaws.

atLaNt1s
19th Jul 2010, 23:25
Your comparing DX to games nowadays, dx is a masterpiece because its unique and will always be, so there you go, dont compare.

pringlepower
19th Jul 2010, 23:30
Your comparing DX to games nowadays, dx is a masterpiece because its unique and will always be, so there you go, dont compare.

Okay, to games of yore then

System Shock 2 had a hacking minigame, which added more user input, and scaled well in difficulty (along with autohack tools). Combat was better done as well.

Grim Fandango had some great voice acting, along with plenty of other games.

Giant: Citizen Kabuto looked great.

DX is still great. But it's not perfect, and it's got some very noticeable flaws. It's brilliance is in the sum of its parts, but many of those individual parts aren't great.

hem dazon 90
20th Jul 2010, 01:07
It's good for yatzhee. He relieves stress.

And yeah sorry Shralla, go on.

besides yahtzee I mean. But the forums are the most elitest trashbins ever.

PlasmaSnake101
20th Jul 2010, 01:16
I can't really see an easier way to present something, than a window that takes up half of the screen at the start of a new game.

Could have added some neon arrows and a sign that says "Here Be Skills!!!", I suppose.

I actually wouldn't mind if the skills tab was highlighted when you've enough points to put into any skill, as long as the option to turn it off on certain skills was available. Could help break in the new players.

I remember playing Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn as a kid, I didn't know you had to go to the character page and hit level up to gain the effects of it. I was a console player back then though. Also, play Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, it's amazing and will make you love DnD RPG's forever.

pringlepower
20th Jul 2010, 01:33
I actually wouldn't mind if the skills tab was highlighted when you've enough points to put into any skill, as long as the option to turn it off on certain skills was available. Could help break in the new players.

I remember playing Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn as a kid, I didn't know you had to go to the character page and hit level up to gain the effects of it. I was a console player back then though. Also, play Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, it's amazing and will make you love DnD RPG's forever.

I learned from that game how much I hate DnDs spell system

maddermadcat
20th Jul 2010, 03:55
That particular quote is rage-worthy. I'm a bit confused by Warren's belief that gamers didn't respond well to having a lot of choice -- IIRC Deus Ex was well received and praised for the freedom it granted the player.


I would've preferred some better stealth mechanics though, like an earlier aug that showed guard sight.

Really? That doesn't sound even a bit silly to you?

The direction they're facing should tell you where they can see and where they can't.


the sweet little noise that plays every time you get some

teehee

pringlepower
20th Jul 2010, 04:12
That particular quote is rage-worthy. I'm a bit confused by Warren's belief that gamers didn't respond well to having a lot of choice -- IIRC Deus Ex was well received and praised for the freedom it granted the player.



Really? That doesn't sound even a bit silly to you?

The direction they're facing should tell you where they can see and where they can't.



teehee

The ability for nanomachines in my cranium to assembly a fully-functional spy drone with camera feed connected to my brain and the ability to release an EMP shockwave was also rather silly.

maddermadcat
20th Jul 2010, 04:35
I fully agree with you there. Doesn't make your idea any less silly, though.

Reminds me of the crazy stuff Transmetropolitan did with nanotechnology -- a swarm of nanobots that resembles a gas cloud and acts as a 3D camera, for instance. Wonder why DX didn't go for something along those lines for a scouting aug.

Fluffis
20th Jul 2010, 05:01
Combat: dumb AI, dumb aiming with weapon skill progression (especially in the beginning). In general, poor FPS mechanics.


Dumb AI, I can agree with. Even for the time period. The aiming and such is fairly standard for a true RPG, even true RPGs nowadays. In the beginning you suck at shooting/melee. It's just the way an RPG works, and DX is an RPG - not a pure FPS.



Locks, tools: well yeah if you turn around you stop. But, and especially for hacking, you just clicked and it happened (with hacking actually making you invisible to everyone around you - and you can hack anything at level 1 computers, just the ICE breaker takes longer, which really only matters if you're reading e-mails). I would've preferred something along the lines of Fallout 3 or Alpha Protocol's hacking minigames (NOT Mass Effect 2. ugh).


They were aiming for a skill system where you wouldn't fail if you had the right level of skill. It wasn't supposed to be random in any way. When you're good enough, you're good enough.

Higher level hacking affects your ability to control things while hacking security systems, and gives you more time to read things that, while maybe not crucial, are fairly important or at least interesting.



Voices: The ridiculous is the majority though, especially in HK and Paris. Now I know this was back when games didn't have huge budgets, but stuff like Grim Fandango and MGS had excellent VOs


Ah, yes... Grim Fandango, developed and published by Lucasarts, and MGS developed and published by Konami. Two of the biggest, richest and most influential computer gaming companies in history, especially in the early 80's (Konami) mid 80's and 90's (both). If there were companies out there that could secure good VO back in the late 90s, it would be them.



Stealth: Okay I put it poorly, I usually go along with being discovered, etc. I would've preferred some better stealth mechanics though, like an earlier aug that showed guard sight. Cloak and Radar Invisibility don't really add to stealth, they more defeat the purpose of the entire system.


Why would you need to see guard sight? If they're looking your way, hide. Cloak and Radar Invisibility use up resources... really, really quickly in the beginning.



Once CD: that's not really an positive for the graphics, even if it is a technological achievements. Having 2 CDs and better graphics (especially those character models) wouldn't be so bad


Hard drive space has always been an issue for gamers. Back in 2000, what would you rather have had, if you had been given a choice (and really, really think about this)? A game that took up 700 MB or the same game, that had the same amount of game content, at 1,4 GB? (Assuming they'd have chosen the same way to go, with everything copied to HDD.)



Anyways hopefully you don't think I'm a DX hater or anything, just for me the game's achievements in openness and a deep, intelligently-built world helped me ignore its more gaping flaws.

No, I don't think you're a hater. I just think you are exaggerating the flaws of DX.

pringlepower
20th Jul 2010, 05:26
Dumb AI, I can agree with. Even for the time period. The aiming and such is fairly standard for a true RPG, even true RPGs nowadays. In the beginning you suck at shooting/melee. It's just the way an RPG works, and DX is an RPG - not a pure FPS.

Hard drive space has always been an issue for gamers. Back in 2000, what would you rather have had, if you had been given a choice (and really, really think about this)? A game that took up 700 MB or the same game, that had the same amount of game content, at 1,4 GB? (Assuming they'd have chosen the same way to go, with everything copied to HDD.)



No, I don't think you're a hater. I just think you are exaggerating the flaws of DX.

I know it's RPG convention but the combat just bugged me. It works with an isometric RPG with a point and click combat system, since you're not as immersed in what the character's doing but with an FP game like DX or Morrowind it just takes you out of character immediately, or it did for me anyways. For the first couple hours I was playing as someone who's either heavily drunk, or high, crippled, or half-blind, or something that prevents them from attacking like a normal person, which really ruins the whole "highly-trained agent thing" for me. Personally I liked Fallout 3's skill gradient when it came to guns and accuracy.

Granted my suggestions aren't great, but there was something about stealth that was really lacking. I just can't express it so well. (and it's noticeable early on. First time I played Liberty Island I crouched and walked behind a guard for a good 200 metres then smacked him with a crowbar, which left me really unsatisfied).

Well I dunno, I'm one of the people who got Riven, Myst III and IV on harddrive (with a 2002 computer) and those games were freaking huge, and I never really minded.

Fluffis
20th Jul 2010, 05:55
I know it's RPG convention but the combat just bugged me. It works with an isometric RPG with a point and click combat system, since you're not as immersed in what the character's doing but with an FP game like DX or Morrowind it just takes you out of character immediately, or it did for me anyways. For the first couple hours I was playing as someone who's either heavily drunk, or high, crippled, or half-blind, or something that prevents them from attacking like a normal person, which really ruins the whole "highly-trained agent thing" for me. Personally I liked Fallout 3's skill gradient when it came to guns and accuracy.


And that's completely cool. I don't think that's stupid or anything, just to clarify. It didn't fit your play style, and that's fine. It's just that it isn't a flaw in the game... See what I mean?



Granted my suggestions aren't great, but there was something about stealth that was really lacking. I just can't express it so well. (and it's noticeable early on. First time I played Liberty Island I crouched and walked behind a guard for a good 200 metres then smacked him with a crowbar, which left me really unsatisfied).


I get what you mean, but that's really an effect of the AI problem. The AI was... idiotic. :D



Well I dunno, I'm one of the people who got Riven, Myst III and IV on harddrive (with a 2002 computer) and those games were freaking huge, and I never really minded.

Well, considering that a (new) hard drive in 2002 would have been, on average, about 40-60 GB larger than one in 2000, that's not all that surprising.

super...
20th Jul 2010, 08:12
guard sight Aug would be kind of neat. mostly because it would help you see where guards were looking when you actually could not see the guard it's self. (like they are around a corner or a sniper up high that you may otherwise miss)

but you kind of get the same thing once you can see past walls and i'm not sure how the fiction for a guard sight aug would work thematicly.

Pretentious Old Man.
20th Jul 2010, 11:35
I learned from that game how much I hate DnDs spell system

Heretic.

Mindmute
20th Jul 2010, 11:40
guard sight Aug would be kind of neat. mostly because it would help you see where guards were looking when you actually could not see the guard it's self. (like they are around a corner or a sniper up high that you may otherwise miss)

but you kind of get the same thing once you can see past walls and i'm not sure how the fiction for a guard sight aug would work thematicly.

I can't possibly see them being able to explain an aug which makes you see what someone else is seeing from a distance...
I can't see how that'd enhance gameplay either, it'd just make stealth a bit less gratifying by making it even easier than it already is.


Heretic.
This too. You don't have to like DnD's system to acknowledge that game was one of the best RPG of all time..

xsamitt
20th Jul 2010, 11:43
I can't possibly see them being able to explain an aug which makes you see what someone else is seeing from a distance...
I can't see how that'd enhance gameplay either, it'd just make stealth a bit less gratifying by making it even easier than it already is.


This too. You don't have to like DnD's system to acknowledge that game was one of the best RPG of all time..

I agree,some augs are better left under the rug.

WildcatPhoenix
20th Jul 2010, 13:03
Okay, to games of yore then

System Shock 2 had a hacking minigame, which added more user input, and scaled well in difficulty (along with autohack tools). Combat was better done as well.


Am I the only one here who f*#@ing hates mini-games? It's like I'm in the middle of this immersive story, sneaking into highly secure military installations, dodging cameras, unravelling huge conspiracies, and then suddenly...

...I'm stuck playing one of those little triangular puzzles they give you at The Cracker Barrel.

Seriously, hate 'em. Not sure why these became the industry standard to represent hacking or lockpicking. Deus Ex was all about resource management, end of story. You come across an obstacle, you evaluate your resources. "Okay, door strength 50%, lock strength 50%. It will take 2 lockpicks to break through, or 1 LAM. But I have 18 lockpicks and only one LAM. Hmmm, what do I do?" Each item runs the risk of detection: an enemy guard might come across you while you are picking the lock, or someone might hear the explosion of the LAM. Point and click, yes, but effective.

But don't tell me modern games are more "advanced" because they make you play a round of Tetris while you wait for the door to unlock. :hmm:

ThePrecursor
20th Jul 2010, 13:38
Am I the only one here who f*#@ing hates mini-games? It's like I'm in the middle of this immersive story, sneaking into highly secure military installations, dodging cameras, unravelling huge conspiracies, and then suddenly...

...I'm stuck playing one of those little triangular puzzles they give you at The Cracker Barrel.

Seriously, hate 'em. Not sure why these became the industry standard to represent hacking or lockpicking. Deus Ex was all about resource management, end of story. You come across an obstacle, you evaluate your resources. "Okay, door strength 50%, lock strength 50%. It will take 2 lockpicks to break through, or 1 LAM. But I have 18 lockpicks and only one LAM. Hmmm, what do I do?" Each item runs the risk of detection: an enemy guard might come across you while you are picking the lock, or someone might hear the explosion of the LAM. Point and click, yes, but effective.

But don't tell me modern games are more "advanced" because they make you play a round of Tetris while you wait for the door to unlock. :hmm:

Well, I hate it when you click a button and after a few seconds, without doing anything yourself, the door magically opens. I guess that balances things out :rolleyes:

Besides, you aren't playing a game while waiting for the door to unlock, you are in fact unlocking the door yourself, instead of simply pushing a button with no challenge to it (that's not hacking or lockpicking, that's just waiting for the door to open).

I believe minigames, if made interesting and challenging, actually add to the immersion. They make you participate in the hacking or unlocking instead of doing it for you while you watch from the sideline.

Fluffis
20th Jul 2010, 14:04
Well, I hate it when you click a button and after a few seconds, without doing anything yourself, the door magically opens. I guess that balances things out :rolleyes:

Besides, you aren't playing a game while waiting for the door to unlock, you are in fact unlocking the door yourself, instead of simply pushing a button with no challenge to it (that's not hacking or lockpicking, that's just waiting for the door to open).

I believe minigames, if made interesting and challenging, actually add to the immersion. They make you participate in the hacking or unlocking instead of doing it for you while you watch from the sideline.

If they have the kind of mechanic they have in Fallout 3 and Oblivion, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Either you can use one pick to open, if you're good enough, or you can attempt to force the lock, risking losing several picks. That kind of mechanic works for me. If you only have the minigame, it gets old really, really fast.

Irate_Iguana
20th Jul 2010, 15:10
I believe minigames, if made interesting and challenging, actually add to the immersion. They make you participate in the hacking or unlocking instead of doing it for you while you watch from the sideline.

Besides Pazaak I've never seen a minigame that was interesting and/or challenging after encountering it for the fourth time. Minigames always fall into the easy category or the frustrating category. Easy minigames are self explanatory. The frustrating category generally relies randomization to provide challenge. While it could be very easy the first time the time after that might be impossible. Both are boring.

Immersion doesn't really come into play for me when it comes to minigames. Generally you are talking about abstractions that have little to do with whatever that they are supposed to represent. Just give me the push of a button and playing the waiting game. Hoping that I timed the hacking, lockpicking, whatever, right so that the guard doesn't walk in while the animation plays interests me more than having to play memory for the 20th time.

Jerion
20th Jul 2010, 15:19
IMO, DX isn't overly complicated. It isn't complicated enough. It gives you the wonderful illusion of choice and character progression. But for all it's great player-side aspects, it actually offers just a shadow of what it promises. Mission progression is linear, though it does offer a fair amount of pleasant variation (considerably more than you get in most games). At the end of the day you're still playing by a very constrained set of rules and limits. On any given playthrough there are *at most* three, maybe four ways of getting from Start A to Objective B. It doesn't matter how you do it really because for all the little reactive aspects which make the world come alive, nothing you do has any massive impact on how the game is played.

Where DX fell flat was on the hand holding at the beginning. The training mission itself was too harsh- My cousin failed the initial "Blow up the bot with a LAM" exercise because he grabbed all the LAMs, and messed up horribly. At the end of it he had a bot walking around and no way to blow it up, both legs missing, and a destroyed medbot in the corner. This could have been avoided if he had been more patient but it also could have been solved if the stinkin' LAMs had replenished automatically. This from a guy who took to Borderlands and FO3 almost instantly. Everybody needs help understanding complexity and patience the first time, moreso than ever with the simplified wave of recent games.

Human Revolution is a bit of a disappointment to me for this. It shouldn't just be four paths of world progression, it should be sixteen. It should be Deus Ex^2. That's what I was hoping for ten years on. While I'll settle for something equivalent to the original as there's been hardly anything comparable in the intervening decade, I was hoping for more.

[/rambling train of thought]

pringlepower
20th Jul 2010, 15:54
IMO, DX isn't overly complicated. It isn't complicated enough. It gives you the wonderful illusion of choice and character progression. But for all it's great player-side aspects, it actually offers just a shadow of what it promises. Mission progression is linear, though it does offer a fair amount of pleasant variation (considerably more than you get in most games). At the end of the day you're still playing by a very constrained set of rules and limits. On any given playthrough there are *at most* three, maybe four ways of getting from Start A to Objective B. It doesn't matter how you do it really because for all the little reactive aspects which make the world come alive, nothing you do has any massive impact on how the game is played.

Where DX fell flat was on the hand holding at the beginning. The training mission itself was too harsh- My cousin failed the initial "Blow up the bot with a LAM" exercise because he grabbed all the LAMs, and messed up horribly. At the end of it he had a bot walking around and no way to blow it up, both legs missing, and a destroyed medbot in the corner. This could have been avoided if he had been more patient but it also could have been solved if the stinkin' LAMs had replenished automatically. This from a guy who took to Borderlands and FO3 almost instantly. Everybody needs help understanding complexity and patience the first time, moreso than ever with the simplified wave of recent games.

Human Revolution is a bit of a disappointment to me for this. It shouldn't just be four paths of world progression, it should be sixteen. It should be Deus Ex^2. That's what I was hoping for ten years on. While I'll settle for something equivalent to the original as there's been hardly anything comparable in the intervening decade, I was hoping for more.

[/rambling train of thought]

The training level was harder than a lot of the actual levels, because it was *GASP* linear. You didn't have the time to level up and customize yourself before getting through against an enemy who resists bullets. I had to hide behind and drag around a box

Fluffis
20th Jul 2010, 16:14
Where DX fell flat was on the hand holding at the beginning. The training mission itself was too harsh- My cousin failed the initial "Blow up the bot with a LAM" exercise because he grabbed all the LAMs, and messed up horribly. At the end of it he had a bot walking around and no way to blow it up, both legs missing, and a destroyed medbot in the corner. This could have been avoided if he had been more patient but it also could have been solved if the stinkin' LAMs had replenished automatically. This from a guy who took to Borderlands and FO3 almost instantly. Everybody needs help understanding complexity and patience the first time, moreso than ever with the simplified wave of recent games.


Again, this isn't something that is a flaw in DX. The gaming climate has just changed. People are more used to having their hands held the whole way (at least through training missions). If I remember correctly, I had no major problems getting through the training mission the first time.

I think it's great that DX is unforgiving at the start, because it's a harsh world that JC gets into. He has to survive by his wits, and that's what the training mission teaches. The way I see it, there's a reason for the harshness in the way it is handled. You're supposed to be a new agent, fresh out of Academy. You're supposed to know most of these things already and, more importantly, you're supposed to obey orders. In the training mission and at Liberty Island, you're not supposed to think - you're supposed to do as you're told. If you actually do follow orders exactly is up to you, but the orders themselves are supposed to be followed to the letter. If you follow the instructions in the training mission to the letter, it's hard to fail irreparably. If you do fail, however, some parts are very unforgiving, because that's the world of Deus Ex. It's "tough love", basically.

FO3 took it the other way, and that could have worked too... You are supposed to be, more or less, completely unprepared for what happens outside. You're thrust into events that you have absolutely no control over, in an environment where you have never been before. That should make the hand-holding at the beginning a valuable storytelling tool (which it undoubtedly is), more than a form of preparation. Unfortunately, IMO, FO3 took it one step too far. You actually had a couple of tastes of real combat before you exited Vault 101. This meant that you were already a bit battle-hardened before you were thrust into the unknown. That lessened the impact of the transition for me - in the bad way.

I understand that some people prefer the way that FO3 handled it, but it's just too much mollycoddling for me, in a game like that.

In certain games even I like a bit of hand-holding - to get me up to speed - but in a game of survival, I've always found the "tough love"-way more rewarding.

Jerion
20th Jul 2010, 16:20
Maybe "Fell Flat" isn't the right phrase...."Hasn't Aged Well" might be appropriate. The training mission was no challenge for me in 2000, but seeing my cousin fail so abysmally in 2010 made me wonder if my perspective is a bit skewed. If Human Revolution is going to even approach the same level of complexity as the first game, IMO it'll need to do a better job of initial handholding than the original. Ideally not to the same extent as FO3 or Borderlands, but there should be more of it. It should be made a little easier to understand from no experience. I'd prefer a separate Training mission, since that lets experienced players just get up and go.

MaxxQ1
20th Jul 2010, 16:22
In certain games even I like a bit of hand-holding - to get me up to speed - but in a game of survival, I've always found the "tough love"-way more rewarding.

Not to mention, the sense of "achievement" you get when you finally do suvive. ;) :rasp:

Pretentious Old Man.
20th Jul 2010, 16:30
not to mention, the sense of "achievement" you get when you finally do suvive. ;) :rasp:

bleep bloop ~~15g.

Fluffis
20th Jul 2010, 17:31
Maybe "Fell Flat" isn't the right phrase...."Hasn't Aged Well" might be appropriate. The training mission was no challenge for me in 2000, but seeing my cousin fail so abysmally in 2010 made me wonder if my perspective is a bit skewed.


I don't think your perspective is skewed. It's just that we're, at the moment, caught in a rather nasty vicious circle. Games have to be simplified, because previous games have been simplified. Of course, some simplification has had to happen with the widening audience of computer and console games. It's not the exclusive domain of us nerds any more. The problem with that is that once you start simplifying games, you have to continue doing it. At least if you want to hold on to the "new" gamers - so the companies think...

It's something I dislike, but I can't see a way out of it; short of a major gaming industry overhaul. Something like that is not going to happen unless two or three major developers stick their necks out, and take a major risk. I think it's safe to say that that is not going to happen any time soon. ;) The thing is: The "new" gamers are already hooked, just like the rest of us. They would adapt to the kind of games that DX represents. The only thing standing in the way is, ironically, the game companies themselves. Go figure.


It should be made a little easier to understand from no experience.


Unfortunately, I think this is a must nowadays.



I'd prefer a separate Training mission, since that lets experienced players just get up and go.

Yeah, that is always the best way to go, IMO. Also, it removes the need to do the damn thing over and over, whenever you start a new game. (Thank the gods for the "special" autosave in Oblivion and Fallout 3).


Not to mention, the sense of "achievement" you get when you finally do suvive. ;) :rasp:

Nice one. :D

super...
21st Jul 2010, 07:06
IMO,
Human Revolution is a bit of a disappointment to me for this. It shouldn't just be four paths of world progression, it should be sixteen. It should be Deus Ex^2. That's what I was hoping for ten years on. While I'll settle for something equivalent to the original as there's been hardly anything comparable in the intervening decade, I was hoping for more.

[/rambling train of thought]


you are a cruel man just how many games do you want these people to make.

or better yet tell me 16 interesting and appropriate ways for a government agent to handle the liberty island scenario.


also dont forget most problems in the original deus ex have a fifth solution, lam climbing FTW!

JackShandy
21st Jul 2010, 09:04
Again, this isn't something that is a flaw in DX. The gaming climate has just changed. People are more used to having their hands held the whole way (at least through training missions). If I remember correctly, I had no major problems getting through the training mission the first time.

This is the kind of attitude I hate, comes up whenever someone says DX was too complicated. "This player obviously just wasn't smart enough for the game. I did it easy, so THERE."

Games are meant to be designed so that each player experiences a minimum of frustration and the maximum of fun. Ideally, everyone who plays it should be able to complete it. That's what playtesting is for. Sure, ok, you're always going to have 3 year olds or grandma's who couldn't play it to save their life VS hardcore gamers, but that's what difficulty settings are for. If you have people - ANY amount of people- quitting because they couldn't get through the training mission, you've failed. And that was a really hard training mission.

I can relate from experience, from when I tried to get a friend of mine into this game. My cries of "It gets really good!" weren't enough to sustain him through that training mission. Managed to get him a few deaths through the stealth walkthrough before he started rebelling like a badly-spliced organ. "Ok, I'm sorry," he objects, "Who the hell am I? What am I actually meant to be doing? Is this relevant to the plot? Is there a reason I'm suffering through this when we could be doing something fun?"

This, you have to understand, is a guy who I managed to talk into passing the first few levels of "I Wanna Be The Guy"- the most frustrating game ever created.

It was a training mission, for gods sakes! Training! The player is meant to suck at this point! Hand-holding is justified!

There's this whole attitude DX fans have, like complication is always better and games should only be made for people who are already hardcore gamers. Everyone's a new player once, guys. Ideally, games should seem simple and be easy to pick up for a first-time player, but have ultra-complicated mechanics that you can delve into as you get better and better. Easy to learn, hard to master. Like TF2, for example. Or Chess, maybe.

K^2
21st Jul 2010, 09:08
No, games are designed for maximum fun to be experienced by target audience.

A die-hard sim fan will dismiss most modern flight games as absolute trash. While games like Microsoft Flight Simulator are nothing but frustration to the rest. If you try and make a game that's fun for both camps, you will fail. Miserably.

Deus Ex was not a game for everyone. Yes, there will be people who will find it too complex. That's not a game for them. They should leave it alone and go play a game they like. An attempt to please these people will only alienate the core fan base.

Edit: Where did people get the idea that a game should be fun for everyone, anyways? What an absurd notion.

JackShandy
21st Jul 2010, 09:26
Fair enough, but everyone seems to want DE3's target audience to be no-one but the all-important "Deus Ex fan" demographic. I don't think Eidos should be burned at the stake for shooting for a slightly bigger target audience here.

Maybe I'm living in a fantasy world, but I'm certain it's possible to make a game that has enough depth for hard-core sim fans and enough accessibility for new players. I'm sure of it.

K^2
21st Jul 2010, 10:04
Expanding audience is fine, but not at the expense of the existing fan base. If Eidos/Square wants to make a cyberpunk game for a completely new audience, they don't have to make it a Deus Ex. Mass Effect was a new IP, and it did very well, as well as attracted a lot of people who found Deus Ex to be too complex.

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 10:37
This is the kind of attitude I hate, comes up whenever someone says DX was too complicated. "This player obviously just wasn't smart enough for the game. I did it easy, so THERE."


Way to ignore my whole point with that...

My point with it was that there is a different gaming culture now. People are used to games helping them along more. It has nothing to do with intelligence, and I never said it did!

tartarus_sauce
21st Jul 2010, 10:41
Maybe I'm living in a fantasy world, but I'm certain it's possible to make a game that has enough depth for hard-core sim fans and enough accessibility for new players. I'm sure of it.

Good luck trying to push that on these forums. I've been saying the same thing, but no one wants to hear it. People seem entirely too ready to indict this game without even having played it.

****, you'd think Deus Ex was the Bible and Eidos just commissioned a rewrite by the author of the Twilight novels.

Irate_Iguana
21st Jul 2010, 10:53
Good luck trying to push that on these forums. I've been saying the same thing, but no one wants to hear it. People seem entirely too ready to indict this game without even having played it.

You don't need to play the game in order to see that certain elements aren't for you. We've all played games before and we can make guesses based on that. Practical experience is not required. Information IS required. Even the people who are negative towards certain aspects of the game change their opinion based on the available information. For example, now that they revealed that there will be full lines of text in addition to the emote keywords I don't think you'll find anyone who'll have a problem with the dialog system.

A lot of the hostility towards the game doesn't come from the fact that they want to expand their target audience. It comes from the fact that they seem to have changed their target audience completely. Certain people feel that the game is no longer (at least in certain areas) aimed towards the DX fan, but more towards the casual console gamer. There are a few changes that are seemingly not to improve the game, but to make it more like every other game out there for the sake of this new target audience. You'll find that a lot of the rabid fans are perfectly willing to acknowledge faults in DX, positives in IW and ways that they could make HR a better DX title. They are perfectly willing to accept change for the better and to bring in a new audience. Where it rubs is that the made changes aren't viewed as being necessary for a better DX, but they are necessary to get that "all important" casual Halo fan. Despite claims to the contrary from the Devs there hasn't been any attempt to actually see what the "hardcore" crowd wants, yet there have been tons of attempts to see what the casual gamer wants.

JackShandy
21st Jul 2010, 10:53
Way to ignore my whole point with that...

My point with it was that there is a different gaming culture now. People are used to games helping them along more. It has nothing to do with intelligence, and I never said it did!

Sorry, fluffis. I assumed that you were using words like "Simplified" and "Casual audience" as synonyms for "Dumbed down" and "Idiots", the way a lot of people do. No offence meant.

Blade_hunter
21st Jul 2010, 10:58
There is just some people who have a different envision and definition about what means accessibility...

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 11:42
Sorry, fluffis. I assumed that you were using words like "Simplified" and "Casual audience" as synonyms for "Dumbed down" and "Idiots", the way a lot of people do. No offence meant.

Yeah, I know. I may have been a bit too harsh there. It's becoming too easy to be antagonistic on this board. I didn't mean to lash out.

When I say something is "dumbed down" and call some people "idiots", I don't use euphemisms. :)

K^2
21st Jul 2010, 12:46
My point with it was that there is a different gaming culture now. People are used to games helping them along more. It has nothing to do with intelligence, and I never said it did!
Back in the day, you had to know how interrupts worked to get sound working in a game. Now you just need to know that red wire goes into the red hole on TV and the console. (Actually, even that is gone now.)

It used to be that you had to be "this smart" to play games. Now, that restriction is gone. If you think that average intelligence of a gamer did not drop as a result, you are being extremely naive.

WildcatPhoenix
21st Jul 2010, 12:54
A lot of the hostility towards the game doesn't come from the fact that they want to expand their target audience. It comes from the fact that they seem to have changed their target audience completely. Certain people feel that the game is no longer (at least in certain areas) aimed towards the DX fan, but more towards the casual console gamer. There are a few changes that are seemingly not to improve the game, but to make it more like every other game out there for the sake of this new target audience. You'll find that a lot of the rabid fans are perfectly willing to acknowledge faults in DX, positives in IW and ways that they could make HR a better DX title. They are perfectly willing to accept change for the better and to bring in a new audience. Where it rubs is that the made changes aren't viewed as being necessary for a better DX, but they are necessary to get that "all important" casual Halo fan. Despite claims to the contrary from the Devs there hasn't been any attempt to actually see what the "hardcore" crowd wants, yet there have been tons of attempts to see what the casual gamer wants.

This is very well said, Iguana.

I'm as hardcore of a DX fan as they come, and personally I'd LOVE for more people to be drawn into the Deus Ex universe. The game has a lot of credit among the gaming press and veterans of the industry, but the vast majority of video gamers out there have never heard of it. If they have, they certainly haven't played the original.

But I am tired of seeing the same stale FPS ideas rehashed and recycled just because studios think it's important for casual gamers to experience something "familiar." In DXHR we've already seen evidence of:

-Rainbow Six/Gears of War style cover system
-Batman: Arkham Asylum/Assassin's Creed style melee or "takedowns"
-Mass Effect style conversation wheel
-Halo/Call of Duty style regenerating health
-Halo style cutscenes

None of this feels like "Deus Ex." Why aren't the developers forging their own identity from this game? If they want to use the name of the franchise, why don't they try to identify what made the franchise unique from every other FPS out there? It wasn't just a matter of having multiple solutions to a challenge. There was a lot more that made Deus the game of the year for so many people.

And that's why some of us "hardcore" players are upset.

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 13:09
Back in the day, you had to know how interrupts worked to get sound working in a game. Now you just need to know that red wire goes into the red hole on TV and the console. (Actually, even that is gone now.)

It used to be that you had to be "this smart" to play games. Now, that restriction is gone. If you think that average intelligence of a gamer did not drop as a result, you are being extremely naive.

Technical "know-how" and "intelligence" is not the same thing.

But of course, it has opened up for everyone to play. That means less intelligent, and more intelligent people.

K^2
21st Jul 2010, 13:32
No, it's not the same thing. With enough persistence, you could teach a monkey to fix computers. That's not the point. The point is that there is a strong correlation between technical knowledge and intelligence. If you take general population and filter out all the people who don't know how their computer works, average intelligence of the remainder will go up.

Hence, an average PC gamer of the early 90's was smarter than an average PC gamer today, and the later are still a bit smarter than average console gamer, though, the gap is closing.

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 13:39
No, it's not the same thing. With enough persistence, you could teach a monkey to fix computers. That's not the point. The point is that there is a strong correlation between technical knowledge and intelligence. If you take general population and filter out all the people who don't know how their computer works, average intelligence of the remainder will go up.

Hence, an average PC gamer of the early 90's was smarter than an average PC gamer today, and the later are still a bit smarter than average console gamer, though, the gap is closing.

I'm thinking... this post may well turn this thread into the flamewar to end all flamewars... ;)

xsamitt
21st Jul 2010, 14:06
:lol::D:p:flowers:

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 15:52
Rainbow Six/Gears of War style cover system
-Batman: Arkham Asylum/Assassin's Creed style melee or "takedowns"
-Mass Effect style conversation wheel
-Halo/Call of Duty style regenerating health
-Halo style cutscenes

None of this feels like "Deus Ex."

Even though your list was written for maximum ugliness, I'll still comment.

Implemented into a solid Dues Ex title, all of these things could feel very "Deus Ex".

Cover system is just a better way of doing Deus Ex stealth and combat. Takedowns is just a better way of doing Deus Ex takedowns. Conversation Wheel is just just a better way of doing Deus Ex conversations. Health Regen... they still haven't locked down quite how this works yet, so we don't know ourselves. But we do know it is not Halo or Call of Duty.

And Cutscenes... that's neither here nor there; for me at least. If done well, they can make everything better. If not, then it's like any number of things, and could hurt the game.

Most of what you don't like (and I share in part of this myself) is just the third-person aspect, not the mechanics themselves. And the length of the takedown animations combined with the third-person makes for more of a movie than a game function. But still, you switch it back to first-person like Riddick or AvP, and 98% of all complaints go away.
Some of AvP's takedowns are as long as anything we saw in the leaked HR footage. But the fact is, sometimes dropping a person takes a little effort. :)

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 16:18
Cover system is just a better way of doing Deus Ex stealth and combat. Takedowns is just a better way of doing Deus Ex takedowns. Conversation Wheel is just just a better way of doing Deus Ex conversations.


This attitude doesn't help, even though I know you feel it's "being reasonable" (and I appreciate it). It's not "a better way" - it's "a way".

A lot of hostility here stems from the immediate acceptance of some people, that all of these alterations are automatically "better" than the old system, just because they are more "modern". The simple fact is that we have no way whatsoever to know how these things will work in a DX environment. People are expressing their concerns, based on games where the technology has been used and they didn't like it. Telling them that they are wrong, when you yourself have no idea how it will actually be, is not really being reasonable, or productive.

The fact is that a lot of these mechanics are console oriented, and "casual gamer" oriented. A lot of people don't like the way this game is (slowly) heading.

Instead of saying that people are flat-out wrong, tell us why these things should be considered "better".

Anasumtj
21st Jul 2010, 17:35
HR's takedowns make for a better cutscene, not a better takedown.

WildcatPhoenix
21st Jul 2010, 17:47
A lot of hostility here stems from the immediate acceptance of some people, that all of these alterations are automatically "better" than the old system, just because they are more "modern". The simple fact is that we have no way whatsoever to know how these things will work in a DX environment. People are expressing their concerns, based on games where the technology has been used and they didn't like it. Telling them that they are wrong, when you yourself have no idea how it will actually be, is not really being reasonable, or productive.


Exactly.

I've played Rainbow Six: Vegas, Gears of War, Assassin's Creed, etc. The mechanics I listed previously were things that bother me in those games. I absolutely loathe 3rd person "crouch and cover" systems, especially when they lead to maps littered with waist-high crates, concrete blocks, pillars, etc.

As for Halo, the cutscenes work for this franchise because the games are designed as roller-coaster action experiences. There is no real player choice beyond "do I go down Hallway A or Hallway B to get to the elevator?" And don't get me started on how awful Halo's level design is: Fight through hallway, enter room, kill enemies, press button to cue cutscene, retreat through the exact same room and hallway, repeat. And this is coming from a Halo fan.

I couldn't even finish Assassin's Creed because the gameplay got extremely repetitive. So why, pray tell, am I supposed to view these things as "improvements" when I hated them in the games that originated them? :hmm:

Anasumtj
21st Jul 2010, 18:35
Because you're a dinosaur trapped in a time bubble.

At least that's what some people here would like you to believe.

Mindmute
21st Jul 2010, 18:42
Because you're a dinosaur trapped in a time bubble.

At least that's what some people here would like you to believe.

And take note that those people "trapped in a time bubble" are the *fans* of DX, while others are, mostly, people who *played* it, so of them even mentioning that it wasn't that great a deal.
Going back two years when I joined this community, wasn't it everywhere that this was supposed to be a game to appeal to the fans?


Notice: before I get jumped, I stay out of the good vs bad discussions mostly, because I'm not on either side of scales (halfway through positive and pissed off), but I'm tired of remarks like the one Anasumtj's is commenting about. Especially since when confronted with decent answers in these discussions, many of the people making those remarks tend to go off on tangents or start avoiding to answer them instead.




And this seems to be one of the most reasonable comments in this whole mess:

The simple fact is that we have no way whatsoever to know how these things will work in a DX environment. People are expressing their concerns, based on games where the technology has been used and they didn't like it.

WildcatPhoenix
21st Jul 2010, 18:56
A quick note on the problem with cutscenes:

Ask any player to describe the single-player story and experience of Halo and you will get the exact same answer, no matter how many people you ask. The game plays the same for everyone. The story is the same.

Ask players about Deus Ex, on the other hand, and you will get:

"JC Denton is a badass nanoaug agent able to gun-down dozens of enemies without so much as a scratch. He eventually brings down a massive conspiracy by killing the main bad guy and joining the Illuminati."

or

"The player character is an augmented ninja assassin who can disappear, sneak up behind people and take them out without ever being noticed. Eventually he brings down a massive conspiracy by destroying Area 51 and bringing down global communications."

or

"You play as a cop trying to restore order, but you end up coming across this massive conspiracy. In the end you merge with an artificial intelligence to become the first transhuman."

Or a myriad of other combinations. Yes, the main "uncover a massive conspiracy and destroy it" plot takes place for everyone, but how you get there and how you choose to shape your character are unique to your own choices. By switching these critical player choices to scripted cutscenes, you would be eliminating moments that play out differently for every player.

1. Did you kill the terrorist leader at the top of the statue?
2. Did you rescue the hostages in the Battery Park subway? Or blow the whole place to hell?
3. On the 747 did you kill Lebedev, Anna, or both, or neither?

These are just three examples, but all of them would be irrelevant if these moments had played out as cutscenes instead of dynamic choices.

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 19:41
This attitude doesn't help, even though I know you feel it's "being reasonable" (and I appreciate it). It's not "a better way" - it's "a way".

A lot of hostility here stems from the immediate acceptance of some people, that all of these alterations are automatically "better" than the old system, just because they are more "modern". The simple fact is that we have no way whatsoever to know how these things will work in a DX environment. People are expressing their concerns, based on games where the technology has been used and they didn't like it. Telling them that they are wrong, when you yourself have no idea how it will actually be, is not really being reasonable, or productive.

The fact is that a lot of these mechanics are console oriented, and "casual gamer" oriented. A lot of people don't like the way this game is (slowly) heading.

Instead of saying that people are flat-out wrong, tell us why these things should be considered "better".

My post was appropriately exaggerated to compete with Wildcat's. He gave an ugly extreme and so did I. I'm an agent of balance.

The truth is, I don't think they automatically make everything better. But they are going in the right direction.

Actual stealth does have a lot to do with flattening yourself against surfaces. The regular sneaking we saw in Deus Ex is present in Human Revolution, but now we have a paramount addition.

Conversation Wheel is neither dumber nor more complicated, but honestly "streamlined" over a top/down list of options.

Animated takedowns (even non-lethal ones) are far more visceral and realistic than anything we saw in Deus Ex. A first-person perspective would be far better, but it's still leaps and bounds better than Deus Ex.

Taking cover in a gunfight is good. You could do it in Deus Ex, and you can do it more efficiently in HR.


The fact is that a lot of these mechanics are console oriented, and "casual gamer" oriented. A lot of people don't like the way this game is (slowly) heading.

This is where the real problem stems from. None of the things I mentioned above are a stripping away of complexity. But because you saw them first in a Console Game, you're perception goes straight to EVIL! Casual gamer pandering!

The only thing in that list that really sounds aimed at casual gamers is the Health Regeneration. And even that is said to be quite a bit more challenging due to the length of the recharge and AI hostility. But we've yet to see if that's true.

And cutscenes are not a console invention.

You talk about jumping to conclusions, there are members here who see anything different and fly off about "consolization"

My god, I mean seriously! How does a wheel that allows you to choose your responses detract from Deus Ex? It will depend on the quality and tone of the conversations themselves, not the method in which you progress them.

WildcatPhoenix
21st Jul 2010, 19:52
My post was appropriately exaggerated to compete with Wildcat's. He gave an ugly extreme and so did I. I'm an agent of balance.


I think you need to seriously redefine your notion of an "ugly extreme."

I listed examples of games that used the mechanics we've seen in DXHR. AT NO POINT was this intended to be "ugly" or hateful.

So chill the **** out. :mad:

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 20:07
These are just three examples, but all of them would be irrelevant if these moments had played out as cutscenes instead of dynamic choices.

I couldn't agree more. But Mass Effect has shown us just how mailable cutscenes can be. And we have ZERO reason to assume that major decisions will be taken away from our control in these scenes. In fact, we have zero reason to assume any major decisions will take place within them at all.

What we do know is that this is a Deus Ex game. And everyone, from the writer to the gameplay lead, have talked much about player choice and how important it is; not just in how you infiltrate a warehouse, but how you deal with people and situations.

So let me take my first paragraph and word it more accurately: We have EVERY reason to assume a person will come away with their own opinions on what Human Revolution was to them.

The only real way to make an informed opinion on something that's not out yet is to take all the information you have and put it together.

We know that there are instances where if you successfully persuade someone to let you into a secured location, that person might lose their job and come back later in the game with a grudge. And we know that even if he does, you will still have more options on how to deal with him.

So we know that Human Revolution does operate on a dynamic system where consequences are not laid out for you. This is information that we have. And we also know there are cutscenes in the game. Cutscenes do not cancel out the other bit of information. They coexist.

You mustn't latch on to just one thing and extrapolate out of context. "Clearly, HR is just as ordinary and straight-lined as Halo."

FrankCSIS
21st Jul 2010, 20:08
My one concern with the whole idea of less complexity and accessibility is the fear of turning games into a McDonald experience, i.e. a familiar experience no matter where you are, or in this case, no matter which title you play.

The third person cover system, no matter how well it may or may not work out, embodies this thought. To me it comes out as a ''how can we make combat a familiar experience to anyone who picks up the title today'', as opposed to ''what mechanic would define the particular experience we are trying to create with the combat system''. I picked up third person cover (or rather combat system) as an example, but its true of many mechanics, in most modern games. Not all, of course. Thankfully, in the enormous amount of games that come out, we do get unfamiliar mechanics from time to time which still require learning.

While I agree to make a game ''accessible'', I refuse to sacrifice design philosophy in exchange for ''immediate accessibility''. While the trainer can prepare you better, I think it's a mistake to shoot for something familiar in order for the player to know exactly how things work, straight from the start. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a lurning curve, if the end result are mechanics that were chosen for your game, and not mechanics chosen for the players you wish to win over.

Which brings back the importance of a demo, even though some publishers will have us believe it's a luxury the industry cannot afford anymore.

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 20:09
I think you need to seriously redefine your notion of an "ugly extreme."

I listed examples of games that used the mechanics we've seen in DXHR. AT NO POINT was this intended to be "ugly" or hateful.

So chill the **** out. :mad:

I never commented on your intentions.

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 20:12
My one concern with the whole idea of less complexity and accessibility is the fear of turning games into a McDonald experience, i.e. a familiar experience no matter where you are, or in this case, no matter which title you play.

The third person cover system, no matter how well it may or may not work out, embodies this thought. To me it comes out as a ''how can we make combat a familiar experience to anyone who picks up the title today'', as opposed to ''what mechanic would define the particular experience we are trying to create with the combat system''. I picked up third person cover (or rather combat system) as an example, but its true of many mechanics, in most modern games. Not all, of course. Thankfully, in the enormous amount of games that come out, we do get unfamiliar mechanics from time to time which still require learning.

While I agree to make a game ''accessible'', I refuse to sacrifice design philosophy in exchange for ''immediate accessibility''. While the trainer can prepare you better, I think it's a mistake to shoot for something familiar in order for the player to know exactly how things work, straight from the start. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a lurning curve, if the end result are mechanics that were chosen for your game, and not mechanics chosen for the players you wish to win over.

Which brings back the importance of a demo, even though some publishers will have us believe it's a luxury the industry cannot afford anymore.

But can we agree that a cover system in it's basic principle is a solid concept for both stealth and combat?

Mindmute
21st Jul 2010, 20:20
But can we agree that a cover system in it's basic principle is a solid concept for both stealth and combat?

No one's argued against a cover system per se, most people are just concerned that the constant switches between first person and third person perspective might jar the immersion out of the gameplay during combat.

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 20:21
The truth is, I don't think they automatically make everything better. But they are going in the right direction.


And there are a lot of people here who think exactly the opposite.



Actual stealth does have a lot to do with flattening yourself against surfaces. The regular sneaking we saw in Deus Ex is present in Human Revolution, but now we have a paramount addition.


But why is it "paramount"? Please explain: why it is so much better? And why does it have to be in third person?



Conversation Wheel is neither dumber nor more complicated, but honestly "streamlined" over a top/down list of options.


And why is streamlined "better"?



Animated takedowns (even non-lethal ones) are far more visceral and realistic than anything we saw in Deus Ex. A first-person perspective would be far better, but it's still leaps and bounds better than Deus Ex.


Why is it better? Is it because melee looked worse in DX? I mean the effect is the same, isn't it? You press a button, and the person goes down. Is it really the mechanic you think is better, or is it the look?



Taking cover in a gunfight is good. You could do it in Deus Ex, and you can do it more efficiently in HR.


No, the cover is no more efficient. Cover is cover. What you're talking about is environmental awareness. You want to be able to see the enemy at all times, even when your character can't. You talk about realism in takedowns - why don't you want it in the cover system?



This is where the real problem stems from. None of the things I mentioned above are a stripping away of complexity. But because you saw them first in a Console Game, you're perception goes straight to EVIL! Casual gamer pandering!


And because they came from a console game, it is actually logical to assume that the inclusion of it in a game is an attempt to cater to console gamers. No matter if you like it or not, it is actually very logical.

Deus Ex was a PC game. It embodied a lot of what you can do with a PC game. When we see a lot of console-first features make their way onto a PC game, what are we supposed to think? That PC:s have become more like consoles? We all know that isn't true. That PC gamers have become more like console gamers? I think you'll find heavy resistance to that on practically any game board. That developers are targeting the console audience? There we have it...



The only thing in that list that really sounds aimed at casual gamers is the Health Regeneration. And even that is said to be quite a bit more challenging due to the length of the recharge and AI hostility. But we've yet to see if that's true.


Exactly. Do you honestly, sincerely think that, if they change it in any way (from where they are now), they will make it more challenging?



And cutscenes are not a console invention.


Didn't say they were. The cutscenes are a completely different beast. There we're talking about immersion, or the lack of it. I'm not going into that in this discussion.



You talk about jumping to conclusions, there are members here who see anything different and fly off about "consolization"


Because of the fact that DX was a milestone PC game. And the sequel was a half-assed consolized version of it. It is, by almost all accounts, unfit to have the Deus Ex title. Can you really blame them for being wary that it may happen again?



My god, I mean seriously! How does a wheel that allows you to choose your responses detract from Deus Ex? It will depend on the quality and tone of the conversations themselves, not the method in which you progress them.

If you have these two choices:
1. selecting from a number of choices, what your character is going to say exactly.
or
2. picking from the categories "Nice", "Neutral" and "Nasty".

Which would make you feel more in control of the conversation?

Again, since you wanted realism in takedowns:
How often, in real life, do you think to yourself "I'll be nice to this person", and then your mouth spits out a completely random nice comment?

1. DX put you in control of the conversation. Granted, it was a limited control, but it was control nonetheless. Any conversation system is going to be limited by the number of choices you have.
2. In DX:HR you will have no idea what the character is going to say. It may turn out to be a comment/question that is nowhere near what you're hoping to convey. At least with (1.) you will know what the character is about to say.

FrankCSIS
21st Jul 2010, 20:21
But can we agree that a cover system in it's basic principle is a solid concept for both stealth and combat?

It's a good system. Just like bbq sauce is good. Doesn't mean it belongs everywhere, or should be used in all dishes. In the end bbq sauce is a strong taste which will turn all of your meals into one specific experience.

If the experience of third person cover is really waht you WANT the player to experiment, then let's go for it. But there are other possibilities out there, which would create a different experience, perhaps more suited for the rest of the game you are doing. In the case of the footage we've seen, while both mechanics worked out well by themselves, I really feel like the game is split into exploring and fighting modes. It COULD be that the demo was exactly that, and that the transfer may be more seemless in other areas however, so we will see. To me though, I suspect their combat system does not blend well with their explore system.

It comes back to what many players complained about regarding weapon skills in DX. It may not be the most efficient system out there, but it fit perfectly well with the rest of the game mechanics, creating one seemless experience. It could have been made better, yes, but I wouldn't have wanted it to be entirely different. I insist the overall experience would have suffered from it. Some people here presented this design as a flaw, and I think it's foolish, and a complete misunderstanding of how calculated the entire game design was. It didn't work out as well as they had hoped, no doubt, but it made more sense, in the context, than, say, a third person combat system entirely different from the rest of your skill system.

WildcatPhoenix
21st Jul 2010, 20:56
No, the cover is no more efficient. Cover is cover. What you're talking about is environmental awareness. You want to be able to see the enemy at all times, even when your character can't. You talk about realism in takedowns - why don't you want it in the cover system?

This is the core of my problem with third person cover: it's paradoxical.

Cover-based shooters try to accurately recreate the combat experience. Real combat does not involve Rambo standing straight up in a wide-open field, spraying bullets at a horde of enemies. Not hardly. At the first sound of gunfire, human beings immediately dive for the nearest piece of protective cover they can find. Most infantry based combat is usually an exercise of "take cover, locate enemy firing position, suppress enemy firing position, flank and clear enemy position."

The problem is that, when you're ducked behind cover, you can't see where the enemy is shooting from. Giving the player some magical ability to detach the "camera" from his skull and see around corners defeats any semblance of realism the game might've conveyed. I'm ok with being able to flatten yourself against a wall to avoid detection, but you shouldn't be able to see around the corner.

Some of the most intense (and most exciting) moments of Deus Ex involved me hiding in a vent shaft or behind a crate, listening to a patrolling guard's footsteps get closer and closer, praying he didn't see me and sound the alarm.

pringlepower
21st Jul 2010, 21:16
A quick note on the problem with cutscenes:

Ask any player to describe the single-player story and experience of Halo and you will get the exact same answer, no matter how many people you ask. The game plays the same for everyone. The story is the same.

Ask players about Deus Ex, on the other hand, and you will get:

"JC Denton is a badass nanoaug agent able to gun-down dozens of enemies without so much as a scratch. He eventually brings down a massive conspiracy by killing the main bad guy and joining the Illuminati."

or

"The player character is an augmented ninja assassin who can disappear, sneak up behind people and take them out without ever being noticed. Eventually he brings down a massive conspiracy by destroying Area 51 and bringing down global communications."

or

"You play as a cop trying to restore order, but you end up coming across this massive conspiracy. In the end you merge with an artificial intelligence to become the first transhuman."

Or a myriad of other combinations. Yes, the main "uncover a massive conspiracy and destroy it" plot takes place for everyone, but how you get there and how you choose to shape your character are unique to your own choices. By switching these critical player choices to scripted cutscenes, you would be eliminating moments that play out differently for every player.

1. Did you kill the terrorist leader at the top of the statue?
2. Did you rescue the hostages in the Battery Park subway? Or blow the whole place to hell?
3. On the 747 did you kill Lebedev, Anna, or both, or neither?

These are just three examples, but all of them would be irrelevant if these moments had played out as cutscenes instead of dynamic choices.

A quick note on Halo. It was a linear game. That has nothing to do with cutscenes.

It wasn't trying to be Deus Ex, or anything close to Deus Ex. It's good on its own merits. Don't compare them.

tartarus_sauce
21st Jul 2010, 21:19
In DX:HR you will have no idea what the character is going to say. It may turn out to be a comment/question that is nowhere near what you're hoping to convey.

Eidos already solved that problem. If you watch the leaked footage carefully, you'll see that the full text of the response posture you're currently hovering over appears immediately below the wheel.

Another ignorant fool ragging on a game he hasn't played yet.

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 21:20
But why is it "paramount"? Please explain: why it is so much better? And why does it have to be in third person?

Because cover is the paramount trick to stealth. Period.

Unless you're a ninja with ninja magic.

And why do you think it has to be in third-person? I certainly don't. Never did I say that any of these systems seemed perfect to me. Just better.


And why is streamlined "better"?

Streamlined without sacrificing functionality is always better. And since both the HR system and the Dx system allow you to read what you're about to say, there is no loss there.


Why is it better? Is it because melee looked worse in DX? I mean the effect is the same, isn't it? You press a button, and the person goes down. Is it really the mechanic you think is better, or is it the look?

I've made this point many times before. Both systems are essentially the same, but one gives you well-animated, realist takedowns, and one does not. Therefore, one is better than the other.


No, the cover is no more efficient. Cover is cover. What you're talking about is environmental awareness. You want to be able to see the enemy at all times, even when your character can't. You talk about realism in takedowns - why don't you want it in the cover system?

No, actually, this is not at all what I'm talking about. First-person or third-person, a Cover System is a more efficient way of doing it.


And because they came from a console game, it is actually logical to assume that the inclusion of it in a game is an attempt to cater to console gamers. No matter if you like it or not, it is actually very logical.

It is never logical to dispose of critical thinking in favor of assumption. And this is what you've done more than anything else.


Exactly. Do you honestly, sincerely think that, if they change it in any way (from where they are now), they will make it more challenging?

Firstly, we don't even know "where they are now". So to even theoretically criticize them for making it more or less challenging than it is theoretically right now is idiotic.

I will wait and see for myself how it pans out.


Because of the fact that DX was a milestone PC game. And the sequel was a half-assed consolized version of it. It is, by almost all accounts, unfit to have the Deus Ex title. Can you really blame them for being wary that it may happen again?

Human Revolution comes from a different studio and a different team than either Dx game. Yet you think only the optimists should abide by the "don't jump to conclusions" philosophy?


If you have these two choices:
1. selecting from a number of choices, what your character is going to say exactly.
or
2. picking from the categories "Nice", "Neutral" and "Nasty".

Which would make you feel more in control of the conversation?

I would choose number 1. Which is present in Deus Ex and Human Revolution.

pringlepower
21st Jul 2010, 21:20
If you have these two choices:
1. selecting from a number of choices, what your character is going to say exactly.
or
2. picking from the categories "Nice", "Neutral" and "Nasty".

Which would make you feel more in control of the conversation?

Again, since you wanted realism in takedowns:
How often, in real life, do you think to yourself "I'll be nice to this person", and then your mouth spits out a completely random nice comment?

1. DX put you in control of the conversation. Granted, it was a limited control, but it was control nonetheless. Any conversation system is going to be limited by the number of choices you have.
2. In DX:HR you will have no idea what the character is going to say. It may turn out to be a comment/question that is nowhere near what you're hoping to convey. At least with (1.) you will know what the character is about to say.

Just to correct: they're going for a hybrid in DXHR - showing an emotion or keyword, e.g., "Threaten", as well as the full text, e.g., "You feelin' lucky punk?", which I think appears when you put mouse over the keyword.

Don't remember exactly how it's supposed to work.

WildcatPhoenix
21st Jul 2010, 21:30
A quick note on Halo. It was a linear game. That has nothing to do with cutscenes.

It wasn't trying to be Deus Ex, or anything close to Deus Ex. It's good on its own merits. Don't compare them.

No, but now Deus Ex is trying to be Halo. That's the entire point of my argument. :hmm:

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 21:45
No, but now Deus Ex is trying to be Halo. That's the entire point of my argument. :hmm:

Based on their Player Choice philosophy, I'd say their inclusion of cutscenes is more akin to Mass Effect.

Dues Ex is better than Mass Effect. No one here would disagree with that. But that math does not exclude the possibility of certain Mass Effect features making the Deus Ex formula even better.

It's been said by Warren Spector that Deus Ex was great due to the sum of its parts, but that it's individual parts were not especially great.

So there are surely ways to do better. I highly doubt Human Revolution will be better than Deus Ex, but the cutscenes in Mass Effect made everything about that game seem wonderful. You apply that to a game whose fundementals are already significantly better than Mass Effect... and things just keep going up.

WildcatPhoenix
21st Jul 2010, 22:14
I think you and I just want different things, Pinky.

Some people want to play a game to experience a story, to participate in "cinematic" events. This is more interesting than just watching a movie because it lets you take part in the action.

But I'm looking for a different experience: I want to tell the story, not just participate in it. I want my actions to dictate who lives and who dies. I want my actions to change the ending. I don't want to sit back and watch the action unfold, I want to be the one driving it. This is the core of RPG.

Fluffis
21st Jul 2010, 22:14
Because cover is the paramount trick to stealth. Period.

And why do you think it has to be in third-person? I certainly don't.


And this is different from DX, how? Cover is the paramount trick to stealth in DX too. It's even in the training mission. Cover behind a crate, in a vent, behind a wall, in darkness... what's the difference to HR?

So far the only difference in stealth that I've seen is that it is handled in third person in HR. Oh, and that instead of pressing up against cover, you push a button to... press up against cover.



I've made this point many times before. Both systems are essentially the same, but one gives you well-animated, realist takedowns, and one does not. Therefore, one is better than the other.


So it's looks you're going for.



No, actually, this is not at all what I'm talking about. First-person or third-person, a Cover System is a more efficient way of doing it.


More efficient than pressing a key to crouch, and stand up to shoot? Or hiding behind a wall, and leaning out to shoot? Or is it that you want the functionality that you peek out and shoot at the press of a button?



It is never logical to dispose of critical thinking in favor of assumption. And this is what you've done more than anything else.


Actually, critical thinking is the reason why I am (and most of us are) not taking anything for granted with this game.
It's also what we're seeing a frightening lack of, from the "defenders" on these boards.



Firstly, we don't even know "where they are now". So to even theoretically criticize them for making it more or less challenging than it is theoretically right now is idiotic.

I will wait and see for myself how it pans out.


I wanted you to search your own thoughts, and give me an answer to the question whether you think it is more likely that they would make any system they have now more or less challenging, if they choose to change it from what we have heard so far.



Human Revolution comes from a different studio and a different team than either Dx game. Yet you think only the optimists should abide by the "don't jump to conclusions" philosophy?


No. But the thing is: Fear is irrational, and yet so very, very human. When people see things happen, that resemble some things they have seen fail before, fear kicks in. And as a consequence of fear, we react. This is natural. It's the way we all function. You can't really stop it from happening.

People are seeing things that remind them of the failure that was IW. They react. Then they come on here, and are told that everything is perfectly fine the way it is, because all change is good, and that they are stupid. It's not really reassuring, you know...

And bringing up the fact that the game is coming from a different studio and team than the previous games is not as calming as you may think it is. For a lot of people, it is quite the opposite. With Ion Storm, we could at least hope to rely on their unwillingness to make the same mistakes again. A new team, which we also see neither hide nor hair of on these boards... well, it's not very reassuring either.



Streamlined without sacrificing functionality is always better. And since both the HR system and the Dx system allow you to read what you're about to say, there is no loss there.



I would choose number 1. Which is present in Deus Ex and Human Revolution.

Just to correct: they're going for a hybrid in DXHR - showing an emotion or keyword, e.g., "Threaten", as well as the full text, e.g., "You feelin' lucky punk?", which I think appears when you put mouse over the keyword.


I stand corrected. I must have missed that.

Pinky_Powers
21st Jul 2010, 22:54
And this is different from DX, how? Cover is the paramount trick to stealth in DX too. It's even in the training mission. Cover behind a crate, in a vent, behind a wall, in darkness... what's the difference to HR?

Being able to really flatten yourself against an object is sooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than merely crouching behind something.


More efficient than pressing a key to crouch, and stand up to shoot? Or hiding behind a wall, and leaning out to shoot? Or is it that you want the functionality that you peek out and shoot at the press of a button?

Body awareness is really quite terrible in fps. It's nice to have the game make up for this failing in dangerous situations by falling into cover when I hold down a key.


Actually, critical thinking is the reason why I am (and most of us are) not taking anything for granted with this game.
It's also what we're seeing a frightening lack of, from the "defenders" on these boards.

Being critical and critical thinking are not the same thing. There are a few of the highly critical members that clearly still think critically. Most are definitely not. And your advocative speech on indulging our fears is proof of this.


I wanted you to search your own thoughts, and give me an answer to the question whether you think it is more likely that they would make any system they have now more or less challenging, if they choose to change it from what we have heard so far.

You honestly don't understand why it's important to have information before forming opinions, do you?

"we don't even know 'where they are now'". If the system is so easy nobody was dying, then yes, I fully believe they would make it harder. If the system is so hard, everybody was dying, then I believe they would make it easier.

Without a baseline, searching your thoughts is nothing more or less than wildly guessing.


No. But the thing is: Fear is irrational, and yet so very, very human. When people see things happen, that resemble some things they have seen fail before, fear kicks in. And as a consequence of fear, we react. This is natural. It's the way we all function. You can't really stop it from happening.

People are seeing things that remind them of the failure that was IW. They react. Then they come on here, and are told that everything is perfectly fine the way it is, because all change is good, and that they are stupid. It's not really reassuring, you know...

And bringing up the fact that the game is coming from a different studio and team than the previous games is not as calming as you may think it is. For a lot of people, it is quite the opposite. With Ion Storm, we could at least hope to rely on their unwillingness to make the same mistakes again. A new team, which we also see neither hide nor hair of on these boards... well, it's not very reassuring either.

Yes, this is where I realized talking to you about rationality or critical thinking was useless. Fear is natural and we should invest in it. Go Green!

Fluffis
22nd Jul 2010, 00:01
Being able to really flatten yourself against an object is sooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than merely crouching behind something.


It's different. Time will tell if it will actually be "better". It did work fairly well in Thief: DS, though it became almost ridiculous to be able to stand less than a foot away from someone, squashed against a wall, and not have them notice you.



Being critical and critical thinking are not the same thing. There are a few of the highly critical members that clearly still think critically. Most are definitely not. And your advocative speech on indulging our fears is proof of this.


No, it's not the same thing - but critical thinking is the basis for criticism - at least when you can actually formulate your criticism, which most of the people who are critical can, as opposed to a lot of the "defenders".



You honestly don't understand why it's important to have information before forming opinions, do you?


Thank you. It's always nice to be called an idiot.



"we don't even know 'where they are now'". If the system is so easy nobody was dying, then yes, I fully believe they would make it harder. If the system is so hard, everybody was dying, then I believe they would make it easier.

Without a baseline, searching your thoughts is nothing more or less than wildly guessing.


There is also something called an "educated guess". It's something you can formulate with experience and/or education in an area. Apparently, you don't even feel like trying. You seem to be too focused on me being an idiot, for not thinking the exact same way you do.

Where they are now: They have a system where there is health regen, which they claim is not "perfect", as it will take time for you to heal. There is also some form of external healing.

Do you think this system is more likely to become more complex and "harder", or more simplified and "easier"? Just try an educated guess. Which is the most common way for games these days? That is all I'm asking for. This is really not that hard!



Yes, this is where I realized talking to you about rationality or critical thinking was useless. Fear is natural and we should invest in it. Go Green!

No, we shouldn't invest in it. But we (and the devs) should do our best to allay those fears, instead of just saying that anyone who doesn't automatically think that everything will be perfect is an idiot!

Listen, I'm actually trying to understand your reasoning, and questioning it when I don't agree. If you are not even going to try, and are just going to insult me, then this discussion is over.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jul 2010, 04:03
There is also something called an "educated guess". It's something you can formulate with experience and/or education in an area. Apparently, you don't even feel like trying. You seem to be too focused on me being an idiot, for not thinking the exact same way you do.

Where they are now: They have a system where there is health regen, which they claim is not "perfect", as it will take time for you to heal. There is also some form of external healing.

Do you think this system is more likely to become more complex and "harder", or more simplified and "easier"? Just try an educated guess. Which is the most common way for games these days? That is all I'm asking for. This is really not that hard!

The difficulty we were speaking on related solely to the Health Regen and Enemy AI. The potential alterations I'm aware of were limited only to the speed at which the Health would regenerate. An educated guess, to truly be called that, would require information on where these two facets stand. As it is now, there is no information on how fast the regen works. And the AI we saw in the leaked footage was up against a Juggernaut with God Mode on. So who knows how they react to a player waiting behind a box trying to heal.

We're told they will come for you if you hide behind cover and wait to heal. But the challenge of that will depend on their ferocity and the speed of your Regen.

An educated guess would be if I had these two pieces of information and I had read the report on how the play-testers are handling the current difficulty. Then I could say, "yeah, I'm willing to bet they'll lower the challenge." Without this information, you're lying to yourself if you think you are doing anything but wildly guessing based on your angry mind-set.

Also, we can expect Difficulty Settings. And yeah, I'll be happy to "guess" that the easy setting will be so ridiculously easy any five-year-old could beat it.

When it comes to first-person shooters, especially those that allow you stealth options, I always play on the hardest setting, and am almost always disappointed. Games that allow me to be sneaky are hardly ever a challenge. But I still love playing that way.

With the promise of a 2-4 bullet death, it honestly all comes down to enemy AI and the speed of the Health Regen.

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 04:13
The difficulty we were speaking on related solely to the Health Regen and Enemy AI. The potential alterations I'm aware of were limited only to the speed at which the Health would regenerate. An educated guess, to truly be called that, would require information on where these two facets stand. As it is now, there is no information on how fast the regen works. And the AI we saw in the leaked footage was up against a Juggernaut with God Mode on. So who knows how they react to a player waiting behind a box trying to heal.

We're told they will come for you if you hide behind cover and wait to heal. But the challenge of that will depend on their ferocity and the speed of your Regen.

An educated guess would be if I had these two pieces of information and I had read the report on how the play-testers are handling the current difficulty. Then I could say, "yeah, I'm willing to bet they'll lower the challenge." Without this information, you're lying to yourself if you think you are doing anything but wildly guessing based on your angry mind-set.

Also, we can expect Difficulty Settings. And yeah, I'll be happy to "guess" that the easy setting will be so ridiculously easy any five-year-old could beat it.

When it comes to first-person shooters, especially those that allow you stealth options, I always play on the hardest setting, and am almost always disappointed. Games that allow me to be sneaky are hardly ever a challenge. But I still love playing that way.

With the promise of a 2-4 bullet death, it honestly all comes down to enemy AI and the speed of the Health Regen.

The problem people seem to have is not the speed of regen, but it's existence altogether, turning a chain of battles from well, a chain in which you need to carefully manage medpacks, etc. throughout into a set of individual battles, in which you emerged relatively unscathed from each. The combat can still be hard, but in a different way.

E.g., CoD 4 had some bloody hard levels (I played on veteran), but the difficulty was restricted to each individual set-piece battles, seperate from the rest, while in the original CoD (with health kit system) you could go into a difficult battle with low hp, and have to deal with that (I remember having to charge across a field with MG42s at the other end, starting with only 1/4 hp because I stupidly ran at a panzer). It's the principle really.

nathanj
22nd Jul 2010, 04:18
thief 3 had a great cover system that let you flatten against walls without constantly switching between views and letting you cheat by seeing everything. if im hiding behind a wall i DONT want to be able to see down the hallway while the guard is completely oblivious to me.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jul 2010, 04:41
The problem people seem to have is not the speed of regen, but it's existence altogether, turning a chain of battles from well, a chain in which you need to carefully manage medpacks, etc. throughout into a set of individual battles, in which you emerged relatively unscathed from each. The combat can still be hard, but in a different way.

E.g., CoD 4 had some bloody hard levels (I played on veteran), but the difficulty was restricted to each individual set-piece battles, seperate from the rest, while in the original CoD (with health kit system) you could go into a difficult battle with low hp, and have to deal with that (I remember having to charge across a field with MG42s at the other end, starting with only 1/4 hp because I stupidly ran at a panzer). It's the principle really.

No, no, no, no, no NO!!! We are not going into the merits of the Health Regen. I'm not advocating it, and Fluffis is not opposing it. That's not what this conversation is about. Health Regen is IN. I can't change than, and you can't change that. We've all more or less accepted it, for good or ill.

This strange conversation we're having now is about the current difficulty of the game - which is unknowable - and the potential increase or decrease of the difficulty. He wants me to say "yes, if they alter anything from their current setup, it will be to make it easier." But I've given good testimony as to why I can't do that. :D

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 04:43
No, no, no, no, no NO!!! We are not going into the merits of the Health Regen. I'm not advocating it, and Fluffis is not opposing it. That's not what this conversation is about. Health Regen is IN. I can't change than, and you can't change that. We've all more or less accepted it, for good or ill.

This strange conversation we're having now is about the current difficulty of the game - which is unknowable - and the potential increase or decrease of the difficulty. He wants me to say "yes, if they alter anything from their current setup, it will be to make it easier." But I've given good testimony as to why I can't do that. :D

Eh I'm just saying it affects difficulty, but in a broader sense.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jul 2010, 04:54
Eh I'm just saying it affects difficulty, but in a broader sense.

Of course it does. But this forum's been down that road a hundred and fifty two times. Honestly, that many. Don't you trust me?

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 04:59
Of course it does. But this forum's been down that road a hundred and fifty two times. Honestly, that many. Don't you trust me?

Fine. back to my yoghurt.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jul 2010, 05:08
Yogurt you say? Hmmm... what flavor?

K^2
22nd Jul 2010, 07:46
Health Regen is IN. I can't change than, and you can't change that. We've all more or less accepted it, for good or ill.
I have not accepted it. I can change it. I will change it. You can all now go back to your yogurt. I'm going to go get more Dr. Pepper. I'm all out.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Jul 2010, 07:57
I have not accepted it. I can change it. I will change it. You can all now go back to your yogurt. I'm going to go get more Dr. Pepper. I'm all out.

If you have this power I'd rather you use it to turn the takedowns to first-person. That's the number one item on my list.

singularity
22nd Jul 2010, 09:21
Now this is just my opinion.But in all honestly if anyone truly believes DX1 was deeply flawed maybe they could stand to look at it from the standpoint that perhaps DX1 was so close to reality in certain aspects that is perhaps the reason why it appears flawed,as opposed to other games that weren't so realistic thereby keeping the flaws less apparent.Kinda like a telescope can see the creators on the moon so much better than the naked eye.I believe DX1 was a victim of itself in some ways it was so good.

Tell me you're kidding... realistic?
And I love DX to pieces and will happily call it "deeply flawed". I thought so the first time I played it and think so even more today. I still play the crap out of it and you will still find it on every computer I own. From the AI, to the overly ambiguous stealth mechanics that did more to frustrate than add tension, to the rough shooting mechanics, crazy plot that is at times hard to follow (and tries too hard to throw in every conspiracy in the book), characters I cared nothing for, a fairly lack-luster final act , a handful of pacing problems, and many sections that gave you "choices" without any consequences, DX is not quite the diety of digital entertainment that so many make it out to be. Did it brake new ground for it's time (and even a little today)? You bet. Was it fun, entertaining and replayable? Obviously. But it was, and remains, deeply flawed in several aspects. Were it to be remade today with nothing but a shiny coat of new ploygons, millions would wonder why it was ever such a big deal.

It wasn't perfect. It wasn't overly complicated either... but that's another arguement.

K^2
22nd Jul 2010, 09:26
If you have this power I'd rather you use it to turn the takedowns to first-person. That's the number one item on my list.
That is the first priority. But I figure, if there is going to be a program that gets its hooks into the game, it might as well be modular, and allow different mods and hacks to be loaded in.

Mindmute
22nd Jul 2010, 10:06
From the AI

Agreed here.



crazy plot that is at times hard to follow (and tries too hard to throw in every conspiracy in the book)

Honestly, any plot regarding conspiracies is half-crazy at least but I never found it hard to follow. It's actually very simple despite all the twists.



characters I cared nothing for

You're probably one of the first and only people I've seen saying that...



and many sections that gave you "choices" without any consequences

So? Every section gave you choices and there WERE consequences even if they were only minor or localized. Not everything you do affects the grand scope of things and at least some linearity was required to keep a decent progression without it becoming a clusterthingie.
Look at games nowadays regarded as the paramount of choice and consequence and you'll see they're even worse in that aspect. The choices are even more meaningless, especially since you never even revisit any of those characters. Some sections have nothing and others are true hubs of decision making for the sake of it and the consequences in those games are even more cosmetic than in DX.

Examples:
DragonAge: take werewolves other than elves to your final battle.
KOTOR (any): Oh noes, I look evil and get a different ending.

Honestly Mass Effect might've been one of the few recent games that did consequences well and that's only because they carry on to the next game, otherwise they'd have fallen in the same place as the last two.

Blade_hunter
22nd Jul 2010, 15:42
The AI had some problems, but many games weren't much better in therms of AI than Deus Ex except on one point.
The reaction time. this one was poorly calibrated as well as some AI routines which even sounds to be cut due to some other things...
The stealth mechanics are fine but the calibration of the AI in an other hand isn't well calibrated:
If the reaction time is shortened
If the enemies can take care of the dead bodies (Deus Ex have this routine but it sounds to have been cut)
If the enemies have a better range of vision and better perception of the sounds
And if they follow the player until something close to the last point where they sew the player, then the stealth would be much better.

As for the shooting there some problems one is in regards of the AI and the other the weapons and aiming ...
For the AI there is the fact they are unable to take cover ....
The bad calibration of the aiming system it has several factors to add and change to make it good / great.
Weapon misscalibration.

A game who did stealth and shooting pretty well is NOLF 2, this game also features some non lethal weapons, but unfortunately we can't neutralize enemies definitively with non lethal methods ...

FrankCSIS
22nd Jul 2010, 18:54
DX is not quite the diety of digital entertainment that so many make it out to be

No, DX was the blueprint for it. Contrary to what the original article vomits, the game truely was the premise of how gaming entertainment could separate itself from other forms of entertainment and become a serious experience, with an actual science behind it. The engineering behind the design is what we should marvel at here, not necessarily the end result, and certainly not the so-called core features.

What deeply intrigues me is why such a blueprint was forever abandonned on a shelf, never to be used again by future developpers. After playing a game like this, the first thing that came to mind was how can we learn from this, what can we use to establish an order of game design, and make an even better experience out of it? I'm surprised this thought has aparently not registered in the minds of people who actually design games for a living.

Fluffis
22nd Jul 2010, 20:20
What deeply intrigues me is why such a blueprint was forever abandonned on a shelf, never to be used again by future developpers. After playing a game like this, the first thing that came to mind was how can we learn from this, what can we use to establish an order of game design, and make an even better experience out of it? I'm surprised this thought has aparently not registered in the minds of people who actually design games for a living.

This has stumped a lot of people over the years. It's really very strange.

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 20:35
Agreed here.


Honestly, any plot regarding conspiracies is half-crazy at least but I never found it hard to follow. It's actually very simple despite all the twists.


You're probably one of the first and only people I've seen saying that...


So? Every section gave you choices and there WERE consequences even if they were only minor or localized. Not everything you do affects the grand scope of things and at least some linearity was required to keep a decent progression without it becoming a clusterthingie.
Look at games nowadays regarded as the paramount of choice and consequence and you'll see they're even worse in that aspect. The choices are even more meaningless, especially since you never even revisit any of those characters. Some sections have nothing and others are true hubs of decision making for the sake of it and the consequences in those games are even more cosmetic than in DX.

Examples:
DragonAge: take werewolves other than elves to your final battle.
KOTOR (any): Oh noes, I look evil and get a different ending.

Honestly Mass Effect might've been one of the few recent games that did consequences well and that's only because they carry on to the next game, otherwise they'd have fallen in the same place as the last two.

Right, you take werewolves because you killed all the elves. Likewise, you can take templars because you let all the mages get massacred. There's storyline and plot consequences, but really who the a **** about plot. This is Deus Ex forum.

And you only focus on endings, there are plenty of choices throughout the game that have consequences, both major and minor. Im gonna say dragon age since I recently played that - corrupt Andraste's ashes, get a new specialist class, and don't get the fight the dragon, kill slaves to boost your stats, etc. But hey if you want to just focus on the ending:

Deus Ex: In the last few minutes you get to choose between 3 endings. Woo. And you don't even get to look evil.

Pretentious Old Man.
22nd Jul 2010, 20:43
Right, you take werewolves because you killed all the elves. Likewise, you can take templars because you let all the mages get massacred. There's storyline and plot consequences, but really who the a **** about plot. This is Deus Ex forum.

And you only focus on endings, there are plenty of choices throughout the game that have consequences, both major and minor. Im gonna say dragon age since I recently played that - corrupt Andraste's ashes, get a new specialist class, and don't get the fight the dragon, kill slaves to boost your stats, etc. But hey if you want to just focus on the ending:

Deus Ex: In the last few minutes you get to choose between 3 endings. Woo. And you don't even get to look evil.

Deus Ex never claimed to let you "be evil" (or to put it more accurately in the case of most Bioware games, "HEY RETARD, NOTICE ALL THE EVIL **** HERE? THIS IS THE EVIL OPTION!"). It was an immersive simulator, about the "playstyle matters" idea. JC Denton was a good guy, in the same way that Master Chief is a good guy. Most games that let you choose just give a trite and basic evil storyline, that is basically the good storyline with cosmetic differences. The only notable exception is KOTOR.

I mean, sure DX had flaws, but criticising it for being something it was never supposed to be is a little harsh. The AI was supposed to be good, and wasn't. This is a flaw. But you were never meant to be evil.

Mindmute
22nd Jul 2010, 20:52
Right, you take werewolves because you killed all the elves. Likewise, you can take templars because you let all the mages get massacred. There's storyline and plot consequences, but really who the a **** about plot. This is Deus Ex forum.


Please check the context before yet another knee-jerk reaction to someone supporting the original DX. He commented DX wasn't even that good a game as far as choice goes and I have an example of others that do choice and consequence even worse, yet are considered paragons of it nowadays. This can be a DX forum and have mentions to other games, you do it all the time to try to justify the stuff you like.



And you only focus on endings, there are plenty of choices throughout the game that have consequences, both major and minor. Im gonna say dragon age since I recently played that - corrupt Andraste's ashes, get a new specialist class

Really? That hardly has that much consequence when you only need to do it on one playthrough or even save before you do it, do the action, reload and keep the reward anyway. Where's the consequence there?



Deus Ex: In the last few minutes you get to choose between 3 endings. Woo. And you don't even get to look evil.
There's several other small choices in the game that will affect minor characters or give you a greater understanding of the world.
Half of the choice in Deus Ex is actually the multiple ways you can approach the same path, not some dialogue choice over another, that gives you an evil-looking goatee.

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 20:52
Deus Ex never claimed to let you "be evil" (or to put it more accurately in the case of most Bioware games, "HEY RETARD, NOTICE ALL THE EVIL **** HERE? THIS IS THE EVIL OPTION!"). It was an immersive simulator, about the "playstyle matters" idea. JC Denton was a good guy, in the same way that Master Chief is a good guy. Most games that let you choose just give a trite and basic evil storyline, that is basically the good storyline with cosmetic differences. The only notable exception is KOTOR.

I mean, sure DX had flaws, but criticising it for being something it was never supposed to be is a little harsh. The AI was supposed to be good, and wasn't. This is a flaw. But you were never meant to be evil.

I'm not criticizing DX, but the post I quoted.

I will yield that the choice in KOTOR and Bioware games in general often boils down to Angel - Average Joe - ******* (with several notable exceptions, e.g., Bring Down the Sky DLC), but there are plenty of choices you can make with major and minor consequences, both plotwise AND gameplay-wise.

WildcatPhoenix
22nd Jul 2010, 20:54
Deus Ex, and most cyberpunk in general, operates in a very "gray" area between good and evil.

Examine the NSF: in the grand scheme of things, these are the "good guys." But are they really? Many of them are just thugs taking any opportunity to steal and intimidate the local populace. Others are anarchists looking to kill cops and cause chaos. Still others are true political idealists, fighting to restore the civil rights the government and UNATCO haven taken away.

JC Denton can be very close to evil, I would say. You can massacre plenty of innocent people, including your own friends and allies. But the entire world of Deus Ex is one designed to make you ask questions like "Is there such a thing as necessary killing?" "Does the benefit of the majority justify the suffering of the minority?" "Does a foot soldier have an obligation to question orders from his/her superiors?" etc.

The last thing I want to see in Deus Ex is a two-branch Good vs. Evil storyline like KOTOR. And don't get me wrong, I love KOTOR, but the Star Wars universe has always operated on a "Light side" and "Dark side" format, at least when it comes to the Jedi.

Mindmute
22nd Jul 2010, 20:57
I'm not criticizing DX, but the post I quoted.

I will yield that the choice in KOTOR and Bioware games in general often boils down to Angel - Average Joe - ******* (with several notable exceptions, e.g., Bring Down the Sky DLC), but there are plenty of choices you can make with major and minor consequences, both plotwise AND gameplay-wise.

That's part of what I was complaining about exactly, so before you berate me for my repply (just for the hell of it too apparently) try discussing things first. That's why this forum exists.

So many are people complaing that the ones who dislike the changes to DX:HR are at everyone else's throats, yet it's always the others just jumping at people for no reason.

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 21:03
That's part of what I was complaining about exactly, so before you berate me for my repply (just for the hell of it too apparently) try discussing things first. That's why this forum exists.
So many are people complaing that the ones who dislike the changes to DX:HR are at everyone else's throats, yet it's always the others just jumping at people for no reason.

Fine fine. It's just so fun to be a jerk. Everyone jumps at everyone for no reason. We're all pirahnas. Just some are more classy pirahnas.

Anyways both DX and KOTOR had their share of decisions with resounding effects throughout and were forgotten about later on.

E.g., In KOTOR if you poison the kolto supply in Manaan, medkit prices spike up for the rest of the game, and NPCs talk about it. DX had a lot of long-term decisions, but characters like the Rentons are never seen again.

Mindmute
22nd Jul 2010, 21:09
Fine fine. It's just so fun to be a jerk. Everyone jumps at everyone for no reason. We're all pirahnas. Just some are more classy pirahnas.

Anyways both DX and KOTOR had their share of decisions with resounding effects throughout and were forgotten about later on.

E.g., In KOTOR if you poison the kolto supply in Manaan, medkit prices spike up for the rest of the game, and NPCs talk about it. DX had a lot of long-term decisions, but characters like the Rentons are never seen again.

You actually see his daughter, either in the bar during martial law, where you can ask her about Vinnie or in the gas station when you go to rescue Savage's daughter if she ran away after you resolve the situation in the 'Ton.

And I wasn't trying to take away any merit from KOTOR or DA:O (they were games I played, replayed and enjoyed several times), I was merely repplying that if DX's choice and consequence system are as broken as that poster was saying, then those two aren't much better off.
It's more of a matter of "A is as bad as B and B is regarded as good", than "B is worthless". Sorry if I wasn't very clear about that opinion on the first post ;)

WildcatPhoenix
22nd Jul 2010, 21:13
DX had a lot of long-term decisions, but characters like the Rentons are never seen again.

This is true. I think the designers came to the realization of how hard it is to let important characters potentially die. For example, Warren has mentioned how it was difficult to find scenes for Paul after NYC since it was possible for him to die fairly early in the game. The same goes for the Rentons. If you give Mr. Renton a weapon to defend himself, then Sandra is impressed with his courage and decides to stay in New York.

Granted, I'd love to see a developer really take the plunge and say "Yep, this character can die, and if you kill him or let him die you will miss out on a lot of important stuff." It'd be a colossal pain-in-the-ass in terms of writing, but I would certainly welcome the effort. It would really add a ton of importance to your choices in the game.

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 21:14
You actually see his daughter, either in the bar during martial law, where you can ask her about Vinnie or in the gas station when you go to rescue Savage's daughter if she ran away after you resolve the situation in the 'Ton.

And I wasn't trying to take away any merit from KOTOR or DA:O (they were games I played, replayed and enjoyed several times), I was merely repplying that if DX's choice and consequence system are as broken as that poster was saying, then those two aren't much better off.
It's more of a matter of "A is as bad as B and B is regarded as good", than "B is worthless". Sorry if I wasn't very clear about that opinion on the first post ;)

Oh really? Hmm I remember seeing a blonde girl later in the game but I was pretty sure that was Tiff, and only Tiff.

Mindmute
22nd Jul 2010, 21:26
Oh really? Hmm I remember seeing a blonde girl later in the game but I was pretty sure that was Tiff, and only Tiff.

Yup, really happens if you don't help her dad stand up for himself, she leaves town as drifter and starts heading west. She's by the bum who gives you the sewer access key for the gas station.


Like Filben'd say, here's a picture (please try to ignore the dead Joseph Manderley, I wish I knew wtf happened there, but the whole photo album seems to be dead Manderleys throughout the DX world with elaborate stories behind them):


http://www.colinfahey.com/deus_ex_mr_manderley_and_me/images/deus_ex_1070.jpg

WildcatPhoenix
22nd Jul 2010, 21:39
the whole photo album seems to be dead Manderleys throughout the DX world with elaborate stories behind them

The Dead Manderleys. Sounds like a great band name! :thumb:

Fluffis
22nd Jul 2010, 22:03
The Dead Manderleys. Sounds like a great band name! :thumb:

Featuring such hits as: "Alright, Denton", "What Happened?", "Full Op Bonus" and "Aaaaaaaarrrgh!"

Pretentious Old Man.
22nd Jul 2010, 23:00
Featuring such hits as: "Alright, Denton", "What Happened?", "Full Op Bonus" and "Aaaaaaaarrrgh!"

Not forgetting the unforgettable "There's a hole in my head, Dear Walton"

Ashpolt
22nd Jul 2010, 23:06
Featuring such hits as: "Alright, Denton", "What Happened?", "Full Op Bonus" and "Aaaaaaaarrrgh!"

And, of course, their breakout classic "Stay out of the ladies' restroom."

pringlepower
22nd Jul 2010, 23:16
And, of course, their breakout classic "Stay out of the ladies' restroom."

Manderley raps?

Blade_hunter
22nd Jul 2010, 23:24
Click my sig and manderley will rap again :thumb:

Ashpolt
22nd Jul 2010, 23:34
Manderley raps?

Or, you know, the original game. :S

Pretentious Old Man.
22nd Jul 2010, 23:39
The Malkavian mod is made of win.

Although not quite as much win as the Nameless Mod.

Jerion
22nd Jul 2010, 23:44
The Malkavian mod is made of win.

Although not quite as much win as the Nameless Mod.

Ditto. TNM is the most ambitious, not to mention the most interesting mod I've explored yet.

Pretentious Old Man.
23rd Jul 2010, 00:35
Ditto. TNM is the most ambitious, not to mention the most interesting mod I've explored yet.

Wait till Roma Surrectum II comes out next month for "Ambition" (Rome: Total War). Anyway, I digress. Apologies.

WildcatPhoenix
23rd Jul 2010, 04:02
"Get Pills Against My Orders," the debut album by The Dead Manderleys, featuring chart-topping hits such as "Knight Killers," "Going In Like the U.S. Marshals," and "You Will Behave Like a Professional"...

Lol. Love it.

MaxxQ1
23rd Jul 2010, 04:15
Dudes! I totally saw The Dead Manderleys open for Blue Oyster Cult in the '70's!

pringlepower
23rd Jul 2010, 04:36
Dudes! I totally saw The Dead Manderleys open for Blue Oyster Cult in the '70's!

Op bonus > cowbell.

jjc
24th Jul 2010, 03:54
Unfortunately they jumped the shark with the release of their album "Big Guy in a Coat."

Shralla
24th Jul 2010, 04:10
If you give Mr. Renton a weapon to defend himself, then Sandra is impressed with his courage and decides to stay in New York.

I didn't even know that. Damn.

Pinky_Powers
24th Jul 2010, 04:14
And if you shoot them both, Gunther plays on a Slip'n'Slide in front of the Ton Hotel.

Pooeypants
25th Jul 2010, 12:59
This is true. I think the designers came to the realization of how hard it is to let important characters potentially die. For example, Warren has mentioned how it was difficult to find scenes for Paul after NYC since it was possible for him to die fairly early in the game. The same goes for the Rentons. If you give Mr. Renton a weapon to defend himself, then Sandra is impressed with his courage and decides to stay in New York.

Granted, I'd love to see a developer really take the plunge and say "Yep, this character can die, and if you kill him or let him die you will miss out on a lot of important stuff." It'd be a colossal pain-in-the-ass in terms of writing, but I would certainly welcome the effort. It would really add a ton of importance to your choices in the game.Mate, if you want to talk about colossal pain think about the decisions you make in Mass Effect which then carries on to its sequel.
If Alpha Protocol had been a success then its sequel would've had a similar problem too but if you plan it from the beginning it shouldn't be too difficult to implement.

remmus
26th Jul 2010, 16:56
I wouldn´t not say Deus Ex is over elaborate or totally horrible, but it has not aged well and you have to be looking at it with some nostalgia glasses if you don´t think so.

1. the rpg aspect was greatly imbalanced and simply created plot holes, here you where Mister JC Denton, a augmented, geneticly made super agent right out of a special forces training....and you couldn´t hit the broadside of a barn with your starting skills, heck you had to exploit the extra skill points glitch to come close to being the skill level you expect of a secret agent.

2. stealth system was shallow and just plain frustrating to use, the only saving graces was quick save/load and the fact the enemies were stupid and half blind.

3. None lethal was simply worthless, yeah it´s possible, but horrendously draining on your patience, all the none lethal means where ineffective and stealth attacks where finicky at some times.

4. the game promotes multi tactics but in the end stealth shooting/stabing ends up being the only way not getting yourself killed 2 minutes flat.

plus a few other nit picks here and there.

Nyysjan
27th Jul 2010, 07:45
I wouldn´t not say Deus Ex is over elaborate or totally horrible, but it has not aged well and you have to be looking at it with some nostalgia glasses if you don´t think so.

1. the rpg aspect was greatly imbalanced and simply created plot holes, here you where Mister JC Denton, a augmented, geneticly made super agent right out of a special forces training....and you couldn´t hit the broadside of a barn with your starting skills, heck you had to exploit the extra skill points glitch to come close to being the skill level you expect of a secret agent.

2. stealth system was shallow and just plain frustrating to use, the only saving graces was quick save/load and the fact the enemies were stupid and half blind.

3. None lethal was simply worthless, yeah it´s possible, but horrendously draining on your patience, all the none lethal means where ineffective and stealth attacks where finicky at some times.

4. the game promotes multi tactics but in the end stealth shooting/stabing ends up being the only way not getting yourself killed 2 minutes flat.

plus a few other nit picks here and there.

1. A fair point, but acceptable break fom reality, they could have made us immortla killing machines, but then other gamestyles might have been overshadowed, at worst they merely gave too little skill points at the start, not a major issue.

2. Opinion, if anything, stealth was too easy at times, some minor adjustments might have made it better, but there was nothing fundamentally wrong or bad about it. Also, too realistic/smart AI just makes for frustrating gameplay.

3. Again, an opinion, killing is easy, a child can kill a grown man by accident, taking down silently and non lethally is harder, and makes the moral choice of doing so even more important imo.

4. So you complain that running at a bunch of enemies with assault rifles and body armor might, the horror, get you killed? Yes, the shooter aspect might have been better, make the enemies less accurate and give JC better armor (and maybe a helmet), but again, nothing fundamentally wrong, you can take the go in guns blazing route, and you might even make it alive, but just because you can do something, does not make it necessarily a smart option.

Last time i played the original DX through was less than a year ago (have since switched to win7 from xp, now i can't make it to work :( ), and i assure you, it was still just as awesome as it was when i played it the first time.
If anything DX has aged insanely well, graphics are bad, but they always were, voice acting is lackluster, but it always was (and i kind of love the voice acting, the monotone from JC, Gunthers accent "I wanted orange"), but the gameplay, story, characters, all that really matters, is still as awesome as it was.

pringlepower
27th Jul 2010, 12:58
1. A fair point, but acceptable break fom reality, they could have made us immortla killing machines, but then other gamestyles might have been overshadowed, at worst they merely gave too little skill points at the start, not a major issue.

2. Opinion, if anything, stealth was too easy at times, some minor adjustments might have made it better, but there was nothing fundamentally wrong or bad about it. Also, too realistic/smart AI just makes for frustrating gameplay.

3. Again, an opinion, killing is easy, a child can kill a grown man by accident, taking down silently and non lethally is harder, and makes the moral choice of doing so even more important imo.

4. So you complain that running at a bunch of enemies with assault rifles and body armor might, the horror, get you killed? Yes, the shooter aspect might have been better, make the enemies less accurate and give JC better armor (and maybe a helmet), but again, nothing fundamentally wrong, you can take the go in guns blazing route, and you might even make it alive, but just because you can do something, does not make it necessarily a smart option.

Last time i played the original DX through was less than a year ago (have since switched to win7 from xp, now i can't make it to work :( ), and i assure you, it was still just as awesome as it was when i played it the first time.
If anything DX has aged insanely well, graphics are bad, but they always were, voice acting is lackluster, but it always was (and i kind of love the voice acting, the monotone from JC, Gunthers accent "I wanted orange"), but the gameplay, story, characters, all that really matters, is still as awesome as it was.

2. Smart AI makes for frustrating gameplay? Wtf?

4. He means that shooting was the only way to go late game, and that the levels were far more linear. Personally, with ballistic shielding augs, health regen and a lightsaber I did just fine on my second go, but the first time with a silenced assault rifle was easier, and more satisfying.

Shinrei
27th Jul 2010, 13:09
Last time i played the original DX through was less than a year ago (have since switched to win7 from xp, now i can't make it to work :( ), and i assure you, it was still just as awesome as it was when i played it the first time.
If anything DX has aged insanely well, graphics are bad, but they always were, voice acting is lackluster, but it always was (and i kind of love the voice acting, the monotone from JC, Gunthers accent "I wanted orange"), but the gameplay, story, characters, all that really matters, is still as awesome as it was.

How true....playing through DX every two years or so and it's still insanely fun and atmospheric as in the good old days (about 10years ago...huh).

I'm running it on Vista Ultimate and Home Premium (Notebook) and it works all fine for me... i use Kentie's fixes (http://www.kentie.net/article/dxguide/page1.htm), they should work on both systems (Vista and Win7). Just give it a try...altough the font ingame is a little bit too small sometimes on wide screen. But it's definitely worth it to play DX on newer machines as it was back in the days...;)

Fluffis
27th Jul 2010, 14:03
1. the rpg aspect was greatly imbalanced and simply created plot holes, here you where Mister JC Denton, a augmented, geneticly made super agent right out of a special forces training....and you couldn´t hit the broadside of a barn with your starting skills, heck you had to exploit the extra skill points glitch to come close to being the skill level you expect of a secret agent.


That's an RPG convention. All true RPGs function like that. It's a hell of a difference between firing a gun at a target at a shooting range, and doing it while being shot at by people who are trying to kill you or, simply, actually firing a gun at a living person... This is simply the way that an RPG tries to capture that experience.



2. stealth system was shallow and just plain frustrating to use, the only saving graces was quick save/load and the fact the enemies were stupid and half blind.


The stealth system itself is actually (fairly) realistic, considering the technology at the time. You hide behind things, in things or in the shadows. You have to rely on quick glimpses and sound to determine the location of enemies, and you don't have anything to tell you how well you are hidden. You know... like in real life.



3. None lethal was simply worthless, yeah it´s possible, but horrendously draining on your patience, all the none lethal means where ineffective and stealth attacks where finicky at some times.


There's your problem. It's not a problem with the game...

The Riot Prod is one of the most effective, non-lethal, ways of dealing with someone I have ever seen in a computer game. Sneak up behind them (crouching), and jam it in their lower back. They go down in one second flat.



4. the game promotes multi tactics but in the end stealth shooting/stabing ends up being the only way not getting yourself killed 2 minutes flat.


Do you mean "in the end" as "towards the end of the game" or as "ultimately"?
If it's the first, I'd say you were dead wrong.
If it's the latter, I'd remind you that in the beginning you're playing a fresh agent just out of the academy (it's your first mission ever), and you're up against, at first, a huge militia, then military and para-military troops. And you're alone. You need an edge to be able to run'n'gun. You get it in Augmentations, and increasing skill with weapons. With Ballistic Protection, Aggressive Defense System and Speed Enhancement running, I find that I hardly ever take any major damage. If I do, it gets taken care of with Regeneration.

If you're unhappy with it because you can't act like a run-of-the-mill shooter, and just blast everything in sight with impunity from the get-go: Tough! JC may be grown in a vat and be augmented, but he still has a lot of the basic frailties of a regular human - such as an allergy to bullets. He also has a lack of experience in the field (he has none), in the beginning.

What I'm trying to tell you here, is that none of those things are a problem with the game. They all stem from your perception of how games should work.

Nyysjan
27th Jul 2010, 18:35
2. Smart AI makes for frustrating gameplay? Wtf?

4. He means that shooting was the only way to go late game, and that the levels were far more linear. Personally, with ballistic shielding augs, health regen and a lightsaber I did just fine on my second go, but the first time with a silenced assault rifle was easier, and more satisfying.

2. Yes, in games you are usually up against superrior numbers with better gear, too smart AI can make it frustrating, or even impossible to get through the game (wich is not to say that most game AI could not be made smarter, but there is an upper limit at wich point it becomes just too much.).

4. No, he complains that stealth is the only way, as straight up blasting gets you killed, wich is not true, just suboptimal. You could shoot everyone, you could pummel them unconscious, you could just avoid them in lot of cases, multiple tactics and multiple paths.
Well, he might be complaining that you can't just stealth past them without shooting or stabbing, wich is even less true, as you still have the straight up shooting, or just walking past them (works in almost all cases with some care and right augs/gear), or hit over the head with the baton, wich is neither shooting or stabbing.
And while maps became more linear towards the end (area 51 was the worst map of the game as far as most people areconcerned i believe), there were still more than one way to go forward until the very last part, and your tactics would still depend on your gear/skill/aug selection.


How true....playing through DX every two years or so and it's still insanely fun and atmospheric as in the good old days (about 10years ago...huh).

I'm running it on Vista Ultimate and Home Premium (Notebook) and it works all fine for me... i use Kentie's fixes (http://www.kentie.net/article/dxguide/page1.htm), they should work on both systems (Vista and Win7). Just give it a try...altough the font ingame is a little bit too small sometimes on wide screen. But it's definitely worth it to play DX on newer machines as it was back in the days...;)

I got a spare HD lyin around, i'll just put an old XP on it, need to do so anyway as Overlord 2 refuses to work in win7 (i have ATI graphics card and the nvidia physx (wich you need to run the game) does not work except with nvidia cards, except with older drivers that i can use with xp).

Jerion
27th Jul 2010, 18:50
Question!

At what point did RPG stop meaning "Playing a Role" and start meaning "Roll some invisible dice?" Seems to me that the actual meaning of the acronym gets lost on some people. :hmm:

Nyysjan
27th Jul 2010, 19:09
Question!

At what point did RPG stop meaning "Playing a Role" and start meaning "Roll some invisible dice?" Seems to me that the actual meaning of the acronym gets lost on some people. :hmm:
Not sure where this is coming from, nobody has claimed you can't play a role without dice (i might make a claim that almost all human interactions consist of people takin, and playing a role of some sort).
However, RPG = Role Playing Game.
The dice is in the game part.
You can play a role without dice (you do so in games like DOOM, Halo, Tekken, Starcraft 1 & 2, etc...), but RPGs tend to have rules about the role you play, and most rpg's, traditionally, have some form of randomizing mechanics (almost always dice) and character growth as part of their rule sets.
So while one can complain about the unrealisticness of JC not being a supersoldier straight out of the academic (altough i disagree on that), the skill system is pretty conventional one for computer rpg, in HR they decided to do away with it, wich, while i disagree with (not all security experts need be master marksmen), is not the end of the world and proclaiming the game bad because of it would be kinda silly.

Fluffis
27th Jul 2010, 19:42
Question!

At what point did RPG stop meaning "Playing a Role" and start meaning "Roll some invisible dice?" Seems to me that the actual meaning of the acronym gets lost on some people. :hmm:

If that is in reference to what I wrote about RPG conventions, I'll refer you to what Nyysjan wrote. It's pretty much spot-on.

I'd just like to add that a basic aspect of RPG:s is that you build your character from the ground up, like in DX (though JC is more competent in all the skills than an average RPG character). While this can be done in one go, and then just send the character out to butcher everything in sight, it is usually considered preferable to actually get to see your character advance and improve.

IMO, it's a hell of a lot more rewarding to see the improvements first-hand, instead of just being awesome right from the start.

GhostofaMessiah
2nd Aug 2010, 13:40
I can't really see an easier way to present something, than a window that takes up half of the screen at the start of a new game.

Could have added some neon arrows and a sign that says "Here Be Skills!!!", I suppose.

I personally like complexity and having to figure stuff out for myself... then again thats probably why I've never been much for "hand holding".

GhostofaMessiah
2nd Aug 2010, 13:47
If that is in reference to what I wrote about RPG conventions, I'll refer you to what Nyysjan wrote. It's pretty much spot-on.

I'd just like to add that a basic aspect of RPG:s is that you build your character from the ground up, like in DX (though JC is more competent in all the skills than an average RPG character). While this can be done in one go, and then just send the character out to butcher everything in sight, it is usually considered preferable to actually get to see your character advance and improve.

IMO, it's a hell of a lot more rewarding to see the improvements first-hand, instead of just being awesome right from the start.

kinda why I wish most games would just get rid of level caps... I hate it when there is no more room for improvement. Finite awsomeness is allways so limited.

GhostofaMessiah
2nd Aug 2010, 13:55
Not sure where this is coming from, nobody has claimed you can't play a role without dice (i might make a claim that almost all human interactions consist of people takin, and playing a role of some sort).
However, RPG = Role Playing Game.
The dice is in the game part.
You can play a role without dice (you do so in games like DOOM, Halo, Tekken, Starcraft 1 & 2, etc...), but RPGs tend to have rules about the role you play, and most rpg's, traditionally, have some form of randomizing mechanics (almost always dice) and character growth as part of their rule sets.
So while one can complain about the unrealisticness of JC not being a supersoldier straight out of the academic (altough i disagree on that), the skill system is pretty conventional one for computer rpg, in HR they decided to do away with it, wich, while i disagree with (not all security experts need be master marksmen), is not the end of the world and proclaiming the game bad because of it would be kinda silly.

Dice are a direct representation of the term "easier said than done" but that percent probability of failure verses out of the park home run should be left at the D&D mat in a felt bag sitting attop the DMG and left out of video games where the players ability to negotiate the controls should be the bottom line.

Pretentious Old Man.
2nd Aug 2010, 16:28
Dice are a direct representation of the term "easier said than done" but that percent probability of failure verses out of the park home run should be left at the D&D mat in a felt bag sitting attop the DMG and left out of video games where the players ability to negotiate the controls should be the bottom line.

Just because you think RPGs should become like FPSes, doesn't mean that *everyone* does.

I suppose you supported the, ahem, improvements of Oblivion over Morrowind?

Nyysjan
2nd Aug 2010, 16:31
Dice are a direct representation of the term "easier said than done" but that percent probability of failure verses out of the park home run should be left at the D&D mat in a felt bag sitting attop the DMG and left out of video games where the players ability to negotiate the controls should be the bottom line.
That's highly subjective, some people prefer to use their own skill, others prefer to be more reliant on character skills.

Hertzila
2nd Aug 2010, 16:46
I suppose you supported the, ahem, improvements of Oblivion over Morrowind?

You mean getting rid of the hideously incompetent player charachter who can't seem to hit the ninth effing cliff racer that is like 30cm off his face?
Edit: I did like Morrowind but the guaranteed hits in Oblivion was a much better way to do it.


That's highly subjective, some people prefer to use their own skill, others prefer to be more reliant on character skills.

I suppose so but certain things like hitting something from a first person perspective really should be left for the player.

Pretentious Old Man.
2nd Aug 2010, 17:02
You mean getting rid of the hideously incompetent player charachter who can't seem to hit the ninth effing cliff racer that is like 30cm off his face?
Edit: I did like Morrowind but the guaranteed hits in Oblivion was a much better way to do it.




You forgot about the guaranteed magic system, too. Everything was always guaranteed. And that was exactly Oblivion's problem: It's basically a first person slasher in an open world with quests. That does not an RPG make in my book.

And don't get me started on the auto-leveller....

Hertzila
2nd Aug 2010, 17:18
You forgot about the guaranteed magic system, too. Everything was always guaranteed. And that was exactly Oblivion's problem: It's basically a first person slasher in an open world with quests. That does not an RPG make in my book.

And don't get me started on the auto-leveller....

I admit that quaranteed magic was a bit overdoing it, even if they got it right (IMO naturally) that you could access magic with a weapon in hand. I just think that hitting when the graphics showed I hitted and instead skills affecting damage was a good step forward from the initial hell in Morrowind where my guy is practically armless in the start.

Auto-leveller? It might be because I have not played either of those in a long time but what auto-leveller?

Fluffis
2nd Aug 2010, 17:45
That's highly subjective, some people prefer to use their own skill, others prefer to be more reliant on character skills.

That is a very simplified comment (no offence). The people who "prefer to be more reliant on character skills" (usually) also rely on their own skill. In some games, like Deus Ex, even more so than the people who "prefer to use their own skill", because the "character skills crowd" actually have to use their own skill to try to overcome the lack of skill in the character.

I mean, just look at DX; even when you're at "Master", you don't automatically hit. You still have to aim. Conversely, you can become pretty good at hitting things while still at "Untrained" (depending on situation, of course - some feats are more or less impossible). It all depends on whether or not you're up to the challenge.

It's not like we who want a skill system for shooting want it to be like, say, WoW where you (basically) just have to be turned the right way to hit; we (most of us, I think) want the game to be more challenging than what a regular shooter can offer.

Pretentious Old Man.
2nd Aug 2010, 18:02
I admit that quaranteed magic was a bit overdoing it, even if they got it right (IMO naturally) that you could access magic with a weapon in hand. I just think that hitting when the graphics showed I hitted and instead skills affecting damage was a good step forward from the initial hell in Morrowind where my guy is practically armless in the start.

Auto-leveller? It might be because I have not played either of those in a long time but what auto-leveller?

My apologies: an auto-leveller is a mechanism whereby enemies scale to your level. That is to say, if you see a goblin at level one, you will have a moderately hard fight to beat him. If you then come back at level twenty, you will STILL have a moderately hard fight to beat the exact same Goblin, because Oblivion scales all enemies to be just slightly more powerful than you are. That's why, unmodded, it's actually a lot easier to beat Oblivion's main quest at level 1 than it is at level 20. In Morrowind, sure the beginning was really tough, but as you got more powerful, everything got more easy to beat, until eventually the expansion packs introduced even more powerful enemies, and so forth.

In other words, the exp side of Oblivion (as well as being considerably simpli...sorry "streamlined", is also largely irrelevant.:flowers:

Nyysjan
2nd Aug 2010, 18:17
You mean getting rid of the hideously incompetent player charachter who can't seem to hit the ninth effing cliff racer that is like 30cm off his face?
Edit: I did like Morrowind but the guaranteed hits in Oblivion was a much better way to do it.
one extreme, too hard, other extreme, too easy.
And again, it's subjective, i preferred Morrowind.



I suppose so but certain things like hitting something from a first person perspective really should be left for the player.
subjective, i prefer the DX and ME1 approach for fire arms, guaranteed area where the bullet will hit wich becomes smaller as the skill goes up (making you more accurate), and more stable scope view as skill goes up (melee should bring up the change of your opponent dodging/blocking/parrying, wich, again, should be about your skill, opponents skill and rng/dice, but that's my personal preference, not a fact carved in stone).
Mind you, ME2 is a game where lack of weapon skills does work, as you decide wich weapons you use while picking a class, wich pretty much defines your play style fom start (my only real issue with the ME2 is the limited ammo).


That is a very simplified comment (no offence).
True.
Didn't feel like writing an essay, don't feel like writing one now.

Fluffis
2nd Aug 2010, 18:45
True.
Didn't feel like writing an essay, don't feel like writing one now.

I got that. I took the liberty of doing it for you. ;)

Jerion
4th Aug 2010, 02:39
Not sure where this is coming from, nobody has claimed you can't play a role without dice (i might make a claim that almost all human interactions consist of people takin, and playing a role of some sort).
However, RPG = Role Playing Game.
The dice is in the game part.
You can play a role without dice (you do so in games like DOOM, Halo, Tekken, Starcraft 1 & 2, etc...), but RPGs tend to have rules about the role you play, and most rpg's, traditionally, have some form of randomizing mechanics (almost always dice) and character growth as part of their rule sets.
So while one can complain about the unrealisticness of JC not being a supersoldier straight out of the academic (altough i disagree on that), the skill system is pretty conventional one for computer rpg, in HR they decided to do away with it, wich, while i disagree with (not all security experts need be master marksmen), is not the end of the world and proclaiming the game bad because of it would be kinda silly.


If that is in reference to what I wrote about RPG conventions, I'll refer you to what Nyysjan wrote. It's pretty much spot-on.

I'd just like to add that a basic aspect of RPG:s is that you build your character from the ground up, like in DX (though JC is more competent in all the skills than an average RPG character). While this can be done in one go, and then just send the character out to butcher everything in sight, it is usually considered preferable to actually get to see your character advance and improve.

IMO, it's a hell of a lot more rewarding to see the improvements first-hand, instead of just being awesome right from the start.


Actually the thought and consideration was brought to me from this old interview: http://pc.ign.com/articles/071/071578p1.html
It seemed relevant, and it's a good read.

Fluffis
4th Aug 2010, 03:32
Actually the thought and consideration was brought to me from this old interview: http://pc.ign.com/articles/071/071578p1.html
It seemed relevant, and it's a good read.

It's just that RPG:s have been around for quite a bit longer as PnP, than as CRPG. The conventions are just stronger, that's all. Even though there are PnP RPG:s where you don't randomise beginning stats (WoD), or even roll a die at all (free-form), the main idea, i.e. the most common one, of an RPG character is that it is delivered to you "as is", and it's up to you to make it better. We can't choose our genetics... yet.

For me, the WoD version is about as far as I'll go when calling something a PnP RPG - no randomisation at the creation, and minimal randomisation other than combat during the game.
Somewhere you just have to draw the line between PnP RPG and improvised theatre. Free-form RP steps over that line, imho - no randomisation at creation, and no randomisation in-game. That's theatre.

This is also one of the reasons why I can't just think of any ol' computer game as an RPG. Somewhere along the line it stops being an RPG, and becomes just a... "G". The possibility to personalise the character - either at start-up or along the line - is the line for me (no, a new weapon, or a "forced" skill, does not qualify as personalisation)... Addition of other "conventions" (randomisation, de facto control over conversations etc.) brings it closer and closer to being a "true" RPG.

DX falls on the "right" side of the line, imo, since you actually have no control over the absolute basic stats of JC. They're not randomised every time you start, but they may as well have been. He is delivered "as is". It's your job to make him better through skills and augs, and get through the story by selecting routes and conversation. There should also be a genuine feeling that it is the character's skills that define how well you will be doing, though your own skills do play a part (in PnP this is mainly social skills).

One thing they did lie about, however:
Randomisation does feature in, in DX. It's the aiming bit, early on, while in combat. It's not a straight die-roll, but let's be honest; it's not all that far off. :)

So DX did follow a lot of the PnP RPG conventions, whether Messrs Smith and Spector intended it or not.

I hope I didn't confuse matters. :o

Jerion
4th Aug 2010, 03:41
I dunno, it just seems silly to me that no other ways of expressing character definition are widely considered (or even imagined!) in CompRPG. I mean, the point of RPG is to 'play a role'- surely there are other ways of defining that role that are better suited to the medium than an arbitrary array of invisible skills? DX Augs are a good example of this. They're an applicable alternative to skills tailored to the visualized 3D realm afforded by computers and consoles. Why isn't that kind of out-of-the-box thinking more prevalent in game designers and players alike?

Nyysjan
4th Aug 2010, 05:08
Thinking outside the box is nice, especially when you improve things, but one should always remember that the boxes exist for a reason, somethings work, some don't, wich is not a reason to stop thinking about new things, but if you change things just to be new and edgy, instead of trying to make things better, you will probably end up just making things worse.

Also, the problem some of us have with the direction of DX:HR is not that the devs are thinking outside the box, largely because it seems they they aren't.
We have not seen anything truly innovative, wich is not that bad because DX had nothing really innovative (it merely mixed different genres and used their respective conventions to build the best game ever), but it seems that not only are they making the box smaller (by removing skills), and stuffing us into a box we might not like that much (instant mastery of weapons, arm blade, 3rd person stealth, takedowns, regenerating health, console and pc version being identical), and wich is nothing like original DX box.

I'm not one of the doomsayers who cry that anychange is a horrible crime against nature and that the game will suck because it's not 1 = 1 to the original game, but there are some rather worrying trends showing up.

Jerion
4th Aug 2010, 18:15
Thinking outside the box is nice, especially when you improve things, but one should always remember that the boxes exist for a reason, somethings work, some don't, wich is not a reason to stop thinking about new things, but if you change things just to be new and edgy, instead of trying to make things better, you will probably end up just making things worse.

Also, the problem some of us have with the direction of DX:HR is not that the devs are thinking outside the box, largely because it seems they they aren't.
We have not seen anything truly innovative, wich is not that bad because DX had nothing really innovative (it merely mixed different genres and used their respective conventions to build the best game ever), but it seems that not only are they making the box smaller (by removing skills), and stuffing us into a box we might not like that much (instant mastery of weapons, arm blade, 3rd person stealth, takedowns, regenerating health, console and pc version being identical), and wich is nothing like original DX box.

I'm not one of the doomsayers who cry that anychange is a horrible crime against nature and that the game will suck because it's not 1 = 1 to the original game, but there are some rather worrying trends showing up.

Not terribly concerned about that. HR isn't first relevancy here for this discussion IMO. Although in regard to that, the only applicable thing to mention here is the hybridization of skills and augs. It removes some redundancy (bad) for a system more conceptually tailored to 3D gaming (good). When you get down to it, RH and all that jazz is irrelevant here.

With gaming in general, the box seems to be there because it sold well hundreds of times and players never expected more innovation from the developers. In many ways HR is not innovating here either. However I suggest that the AugmenSkill mechanics are truly innovative here compared to other "Conventional" RPGs.

Ashpolt
4th Aug 2010, 18:20
However I suggest that the AugmenSkill mechanics are truly innovative here compared to other "Conventional" RPGs.

Which would be great, if it were an innovative improvement rather than an innovative simplification.

Though to be honest I'd argue that it's not that innovative anyway. It's essentially DXIW's system with XP instead of upgrade canisters.

Jerion
4th Aug 2010, 18:37
Which would be great, if it were an innovative improvement rather than an innovative simplification.

Though to be honest I'd argue that it's not that innovative anyway. It's essentially DXIW's system with XP instead of upgrade canisters.

Conceptually it's both an improvement and a simplification. It's an improvement in a couple ways. First, it's better suited to the rendered 3D medium, as Augs are mechanical and thus visible. This means character development (from here on referred to as CD) has immediate "non-imagined" application. Second (and here is where it overlaps with simplification), the CD mechanics tree is altered. Instead of having two trunks with a lot of branch overlap, it's one trunk with longer branches. The result is less redundancy in CD but wider total range of options. The value of this is subjective, as will be whether the Role Playing experience is diminished by this.

Evolution is easier to accept and create than revolution. That said...yes. It is. Though with significantly more variety and capability.

Esnuk
4th Aug 2010, 20:21
Here (http://www.videogamer.com/news/square_enix_understands_deus_ex_dna.html) is an article about the importance of fully understand the nature of the original Deus Ex.

Ashpolt
4th Aug 2010, 20:30
The value of this is subjective, as will be whether the Role Playing experience is diminished by this.

There's the crux of our disagreement here. Personally, I love stats influencing my character, and I don't need or even necessarily want those to be represented visibly: in "classic" RPGs, I don't need to see that my character has got more muscular to represent his increased strength: knowing he's got +2 to his strength stat, because I chose it, and that's going to lead to him doing 4 more damage with each swing of his sword - that's more than enough for me.

The problem is, adventure and shooter games are dipping their toes into character development nowadays, and if you remove the stats aspect from RPGs, you're blurring the lines, and I'm not comfortable with that. To me, "RPG" means statistical character progression: without that, you've got an adventure game (of the Tomb Raider variety, not the Sam and Max style) or a shooter.

Jerion
4th Aug 2010, 22:22
There's the crux of our disagreement here. Personally, I love stats influencing my character, and I don't need or even necessarily want those to be represented visibly: in "classic" RPGs, I don't need to see that my character has got more muscular to represent his increased strength: knowing he's got +2 to his strength stat, because I chose it, and that's going to lead to him doing 4 more damage with each swing of his sword - that's more than enough for me.

The problem is, adventure and shooter games are dipping their toes into character development nowadays, and if you remove the stats aspect from RPGs, you're blurring the lines, and I'm not comfortable with that. To me, "RPG" means statistical character progression: without that, you've got an adventure game (of the Tomb Raider variety, not the Sam and Max style) or a shooter.

Well HR is shaping up to be defined as RPS, not conventional RPG or even FPSRPG for that matter. Yay for genre bending, I guess. :nut:

Ashpolt
4th Aug 2010, 22:46
Well HR is shaping up to be defined as RPS, not conventional RPG or even FPSRPG for that matter. Yay for genre bending, I guess. :nut:

...And that's pretty much what I was worried about. As I can count the number of decent FPSRPGs on one hand (and still have at least two fingers left,) I was kind of hoping this sequel to two FPSRPGS (or one, and a poorly received FPS adventure if you're not feeling generous) would, you know, be an FPSRPG. Not something else such as an RPS, of which I have about 8 million different flavours to choose from.

[EDIT] And let it not be said any more that "they've not changed much" and "they've kept the heart of Deus Ex alive" when the guy on the board who knows the most about the game is calling it a change of genre.

Pretentious Old Man.
5th Aug 2010, 19:12
Do I take RPS to correctly mean Role-Playing Shooter?

Because that's very different to an FPSRPG. Indeed, even something like Bioshock could be argued to be an RPS by that definition, whereas it would take a triumph of generosity (or ignorance) to call it an FPSRPG.

Ashpolt
5th Aug 2010, 19:23
That's true.

In Bioshock, you gain plasmids which give you superhuman abilities by spending Adam, and then upgrade them through 3 levels using cash, which you find by exploring and on dead enemies.

In DXHR, you gain augs which give you superhuman abilities by spending cash, and then upgrade them through 3-4 levels using XP, which you get for exploring and killing enemies.

I think you've just focused in my mind exactly why I don't like the sound of DXHR's supposed "roleplaying elements". Thanks.

Pretentious Old Man.
5th Aug 2010, 19:29
That's true.

In Bioshock, you gain plasmids which give you superhuman abilities by spending Adam, and then upgrade them through 3 levels using cash, which you find by exploring and on dead enemies.

In DXHR, you gain augs which give you superhuman abilities by spending cash, and then upgrade them through 3-4 levels using XP, which you get for exploring and killing enemies.

I think you've just focused in my mind exactly why I don't like the sound of DXHR's supposed "roleplaying elements". Thanks.

Any time. Oh, and the chief problem with Bioshock was that it didn't have...














<drum roll>






























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

pringlepower
5th Aug 2010, 19:54
That's true.

In Bioshock, you gain plasmids which give you superhuman abilities by spending Adam, and then upgrade them through 3 levels using cash, which you find by exploring and on dead enemies.

In DXHR, you gain augs which give you superhuman abilities by spending cash, and then upgrade them through 3-4 levels using XP, which you get for exploring and killing enemies.

I think you've just focused in my mind exactly why I don't like the sound of DXHR's supposed "roleplaying elements". Thanks.

Well I assume the arm augs act as "skills" in that they don't need to be bought, with cranial, optical, spleenic augs acting as... uh augs.

Ashpolt
5th Aug 2010, 20:25
Well I assume the arm augs act as "skills" in that they don't need to be bought, with cranial, optical, spleenic augs acting as... uh augs.

The arm blades are just free augs, in the same way your lightning plasmid is free in Bioshock. I think equating them with skills would be a hell of a stretch. And even if by some leap of logic you managed it, congratulations! You have one skill.

Jerion
5th Aug 2010, 20:33
Ashpolt doesn't like the notion of no "skills". In DXHR, you don't have "skills". You have "skill"-function aug upgrades. Moderate difference in application between the two. It's all a matter of preference. I've never encountered a setup quite like it so I don't know what to think of it yet.

Pretentious Old Man.
5th Aug 2010, 20:42
Ashpolt doesn't like the notion of no "skills". In DXHR, you don't have "skills". You have "skill"-function aug upgrades. Moderate difference in application between the two. It's all a matter of preference. I've never encountered a setup quite like it so I don't know what to think of it yet.

Despite the "amazing he could be proud of us when so much was due to... our augmentations" quote from the original, I still like to feel that the PC's actual *skill* makes a difference, as opposed to merely somethingthatfunctionslikeaskillbutisntaskill. Maybe I'm just being picky, but in an RPG I like to have lots of different intermeshing systems, rather than just one, even if it covers all the same ideas.

Ashpolt
5th Aug 2010, 20:59
Despite the "amazing he could be proud of us when so much was due to... our augmentations" quote from the original, I still like to feel that the PC's actual *skill* makes a difference, as opposed to merely somethingthatfunctionslikeaskillbutisntaskill. Maybe I'm just being picky, but in an RPG I like to have lots of different intermeshing systems, rather than just one, even if it covers all the same ideas.

Exactly. I'd rather have some overlap between systems than eliminate overlap by only having one system.

OuttaZyme
5th Aug 2010, 21:06
Here (http://www.videogamer.com/news/square_enix_understands_deus_ex_dna.html) is an article about the importance of fully understand the nature of the original Deus Ex.

If Ion Storm had done the same thing before putting IW together, they might still be around.

But seriously...

This little article manages to at once alarm and reassure me; it's alarming because I don't like that they needed to purposefully study the first DX before getting to work on HR. Ideally, in the perfect, fluffy-bunny, rainbow-unicorn-spunk, cotton candy world inside my head, each member of the DXHR team would consider it a privilege and an honor and so forth simply to be working on the game in the first place, content to be compensated in gratis allocations of Mountain Dew and mini-bags of crunchy Cheetos, which would be enjoyed over dreamy reminiscences and in-jokes including 0451 and "I love this place!" Not a labor of love, to be sure, but a rabid, consuming fanboyesque obsession. Ideally.

But, as the folks at EM are professionals, and probably want someday to make a game based on their own IP, they'll suck it up and do the best job that they possibly can on HR, which includes a conscientious assessment of what made the first DX so compelling. This, in spite of my Raised Eyebrow of Skeptical Dubiousness +5, is reassuring.

But the notion that detonated the Genesis Device in this thread -- that the original DX was "overly complicated" -- is true. Not for you or me, Mr. and Ms. Die Hard Deus Ex Fan, but for the guy who launched that particular steaming torpedo; Mr. Pitts. This is, after all, a man who, as recently as two years ago, considered this (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/smile_nod/4876-Smile-and-Nod-GTA-4-The-Best-Game-Ive-Ever-Played) the best game he'd ever played. Seriously?

How much credibility am I supposed to loan to the opinion that DX was deeply flawed and overly complicated, when it's coming from someone whose gaming standard is GTA-f--ing-IV? The fact that he runs behind Spector's skirts, glibly asserting that "I feel I'm on pretty safe ground espousing this opinion considering it's shared by the creator ;)", means exactly Richard. This principle, taken to its consistent extrapolation, implies that anyone is justified in espousing the opinion that Russ Pitts a blithering knob, regardless of cause or reason, provided that Russ's own father thinks the same thing.

I'm perfectly willing to consider -- and perhaps even respect -- anyone's well-reasoned opinions, but when the justification for said opinions consists solely of "well, they're valid because the creator said so," I'll take a pass, thanks, and get my gaming "news" elsewhere.

pringlepower
5th Aug 2010, 23:35
If Ion Storm had done the same thing before putting IW together, they might still be around.

But seriously...

This little article manages to at once alarm and reassure me; it's alarming because I don't like that they needed to purposefully study the first DX before getting to work on HR. Ideally, in the perfect, fluffy-bunny, rainbow-unicorn-spunk, cotton candy world inside my head, each member of the DXHR team would consider it a privilege and an honor and so forth simply to be working on the game in the first place, content to be compensated in gratis allocations of Mountain Dew and mini-bags of crunchy Cheetos, which would be enjoyed over dreamy reminiscences and in-jokes including 0451 and "I love this place!" Not a labor of love, to be sure, but a rabid, consuming fanboyesque obsession. Ideally.

But, as the folks at EM are professionals, and probably want someday to make a game based on their own IP, they'll suck it up and do the best job that they possibly can on HR, which includes a conscientious assessment of what made the first DX so compelling. This, in spite of my Raised Eyebrow of Skeptical Dubiousness +5, is reassuring.

But the notion that detonated the Genesis Device in this thread -- that the original DX was "overly complicated" -- is true. Not for you or me, Mr. and Ms. Die Hard Deus Ex Fan, but for the guy who launched that particular steaming torpedo; Mr. Pitts. This is, after all, a man who, as recently as two years ago, considered this (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/smile_nod/4876-Smile-and-Nod-GTA-4-The-Best-Game-Ive-Ever-Played) the best game he'd ever played. Seriously?

How much credibility am I supposed to loan to the opinion that DX was deeply flawed and overly complicated, when it's coming from someone whose gaming standard is GTA-f--ing-IV? The fact that he runs behind Spector's skirts, glibly asserting that "I feel I'm on pretty safe ground espousing this opinion considering it's shared by the creator ;)", means exactly Richard. This principle, taken to its consistent extrapolation, implies that anyone is justified in espousing the opinion that Russ Pitts a blithering knob, regardless of cause or reason, provided that Russ's own father thinks the same thing.

I'm perfectly willing to consider -- and perhaps even respect -- anyone's well-reasoned opinions, but when the justification for said opinions consists solely of "well, they're valid because the creator said so," I'll take a pass, thanks, and get my gaming "news" elsewhere.

Oh i dunno, GTA IV's a pretty goshdarn good game

Corpus
5th Aug 2010, 23:45
Oh i dunno, GTA IV's a pretty goshdarn good game

It didn't have all the sandbox possibilities of San Andreas and I think thats what made it lacking. The story was pretty good to start with but then its as if they tried to mold in the usual over the top style missions in with the serious and realistic (to a point) gameplay and it lost its shine after that. Be honest, did you play gta IV more or San Andreas more? I've got both SA and GTA IV but I'd still rather go back to SA simply because there is more to do. So overall, GTA IV just lacked replay value that the GTA series is known for.

pringlepower
6th Aug 2010, 00:42
It didn't have all the sandbox possibilities of San Andreas and I think thats what made it lacking. The story was pretty good to start with but then its as if they tried to mold in the usual over the top style missions in with the serious and realistic (to a point) gameplay and it lost its shine after that. Be honest, did you play gta IV more or San Andreas more? I've got both SA and GTA IV but I'd still rather go back to SA simply because there is more to do. So overall, GTA IV just lacked replay value that the GTA series is known for.

They're about equal for me personally, with GTA IV on top. Both good stories, characters, environments, etc. GTA IV wins for me though because it was more focused, more detailed, and the world just felt alive. And that was the point - Rockstar scaled down GTA IV, size-wise to focus on one city, and a huge city at that. And every single block of Liberty City was packed full of detail, from the buildings to the people, that made it feel like a living, breathing city. San Andreas was huge, yeah, but it lacked polish. There were areas of the map, e.g., the Mojave Desert equivalent, that filled 20% of the map and you barely went to. Maybe once or twice for missions. It was just a big empty pit.

When it comes to sandboxes to me, the vast openness of the world more or less serves for dicking around. Sure you could fly a fighter jet from LA to San Fran, then jump out and parachute to your mission objective, and that was pretty awesome the first few times. I prefer a refined, polished product to a huge ass environment, personally. It's like the Daggerfall vs Morrowind debate. I know plenty of people lovely Daggerfall for just being massive, but I hated the damn thing because the world was just bland. It was the same stuff over and over and over and there was nothing the developers really focused on to make special (not that they could, since it was all generated).

Xenoc
6th Aug 2010, 09:50
escapist = suckage

pringlepower
6th Aug 2010, 13:59
escapist = suckage

It has Zero Punctuation

Likewise I'm not a huge fan of FOX, but it has House

Corpus
6th Aug 2010, 14:05
Somehow this discussion is now about the escapist.

pringlepower
6th Aug 2010, 15:17
Somehow this discussion is now about the escapist.

This discussion started with an Escapist article, it's just gone full-circle.

H.D.Case
6th Aug 2010, 19:39
Errr, didn't the author of the article mean the complication of the plot (conspiracy, UFO-like stuff, philosophy and what-not), not the gameplay? The gameplay was fairly easy, although sometimes tedious. What might've been flawed was what the realisation of the fighting was like. It was pretty tedious, but not because the idea behind it was bad (fixed first person view facilitates better identification with the character and this is what made the game attractive - immersion in the world as a character), but what it looked like. Come on, remember game opponents saying "I think I've heard something" as a response to when you shot e.g. their leg from the hiding? (would've been a nice Easter Egg in DX:HR btw ;P) The battle system was BAD. So in this respect the game was flawed. BUT, because it was flawed, some people resigned from playing of course, saying that it was terrible (had such friends), but when you focused on the STORY, you just left the whole fighting thing aside in favour of the story and dialogues. And so you did not focus on the battle so much anymore. So a flaw, imho, turned out as an advantage (augs somehow made it a bit attractive, in addition).
What I see from the material from the upcoming DX:HR, I have an impression, that it may FAIL, ironically, because the battle system seems to play a much bigger role. First, the "attractive" finishing off of the opponents - it may be the nail the coffin. First, it depersonalizes the character ("oh, well, I am not HIM anyway" impression). Second, better fight means bigger expectations, which WON'T be met, because DX fighting system was so bad, ironically. People will start comparing the gameplay-fighting system with the plot and it may be a lost battle for the fighting system (unless the plot turns out terrible). In DX you assumed you can't compare the two. Ah, and the first person effective finishing offs are possible, check Chronicles of Riddick - Escape from the Butcher Bay. I would love to see an alternative to the third person way (besides, I've heard you can't control what other things happen in the meanwhile - such a big loss of game fluidity!!!)
Second, it will be difficult to identify with the character, if the Adam is the same douchebag as he is in the cinematics. The "I own you" attitude and "now I am like a model, walking on a catwalk". Come on, he says "I never asked for this" and then we see him acting as if he was so cool and what not. I do not see him as an underdog, as it is natural to think from the plot overview.
Lastly, but it may be only me, I hate the idea of machine-gun-ex-manus of the bad Gunther-like guy and the spinning hand of Adam - clearly not enough content in an exaggerated form. The Neuromancer's Molly's glasses and the blades look nice though :)
My pennyworth, thank you :)

xsamitt
8th Aug 2010, 16:37
There's the crux of our disagreement here. Personally, I love stats influencing my character, and I don't need or even necessarily want those to be represented visibly: in "classic" RPGs, I don't need to see that my character has got more muscular to represent his increased strength: knowing he's got +2 to his strength stat, because I chose it, and that's going to lead to him doing 4 more damage with each swing of his sword - that's more than enough for me.

The problem is, adventure and shooter games are dipping their toes into character development nowadays, and if you remove the stats aspect from RPGs, you're blurring the lines, and I'm not comfortable with that. To me, "RPG" means statistical character progression: without that, you've got an adventure game (of the Tomb Raider variety, not the Sam and Max style) or a shooter.

I have to agree with this.My 2 Cents.

xsamitt
8th Aug 2010, 16:39
Despite the "amazing he could be proud of us when so much was due to... our augmentations" quote from the original, I still like to feel that the PC's actual *skill* makes a difference, as opposed to merely somethingthatfunctionslikeaskillbutisntaskill. Maybe I'm just being picky, but in an RPG I like to have lots of different intermeshing systems, rather than just one, even if it covers all the same ideas.



Yes.....I agree with this as well.

Red
9th Aug 2010, 12:08
How nice of you. Would you like a coffee to go with that?

xsamitt
9th Aug 2010, 13:03
I am a nice guy....Thanks for noticing.I feel flattered.:group_hug:

Pretentious Old Man.
9th Aug 2010, 15:24
Errr, didn't the author of the article mean the complication of the plot (conspiracy, UFO-like stuff, philosophy and what-not), not the gameplay? The gameplay was fairly easy, although sometimes tedious. What might've been flawed was what the realisation of the fighting was like. It was pretty tedious, but not because the idea behind it was bad (fixed first person view facilitates better identification with the character and this is what made the game attractive - immersion in the world as a character), but what it looked like. Come on, remember game opponents saying "I think I've heard something" as a response to when you shot e.g. their leg from the hiding? (would've been a nice Easter Egg in DX:HR btw ;P) The battle system was BAD. So in this respect the game was flawed. BUT, because it was flawed, some people resigned from playing of course, saying that it was terrible (had such friends), but when you focused on the STORY, you just left the whole fighting thing aside in favour of the story and dialogues. And so you did not focus on the battle so much anymore. So a flaw, imho, turned out as an advantage (augs somehow made it a bit attractive, in addition).
What I see from the material from the upcoming DX:HR, I have an impression, that it may FAIL, ironically, because the battle system seems to play a much bigger role. First, the "attractive" finishing off of the opponents - it may be the nail the coffin. First, it depersonalizes the character ("oh, well, I am not HIM anyway" impression). Second, better fight means bigger expectations, which WON'T be met, because DX fighting system was so bad, ironically. People will start comparing the gameplay-fighting system with the plot and it may be a lost battle for the fighting system (unless the plot turns out terrible). In DX you assumed you can't compare the two. Ah, and the first person effective finishing offs are possible, check Chronicles of Riddick - Escape from the Butcher Bay. I would love to see an alternative to the third person way (besides, I've heard you can't control what other things happen in the meanwhile - such a big loss of game fluidity!!!)
Second, it will be difficult to identify with the character, if the Adam is the same douchebag as he is in the cinematics. The "I own you" attitude and "now I am like a model, walking on a catwalk". Come on, he says "I never asked for this" and then we see him acting as if he was so cool and what not. I do not see him as an underdog, as it is natural to think from the plot overview.
Lastly, but it may be only me, I hate the idea of machine-gun-ex-manus of the bad Gunther-like guy and the spinning hand of Adam - clearly not enough content in an exaggerated form. The Neuromancer's Molly's glasses and the blades look nice though :)
My pennyworth, thank you :)

Well, I certainly agree with you about the second part, but I don't agree that DX's gunplay was bad.

I suppose it depends where you've come from. Some people may have come from Half Life, seen DX as a shooter, and gone "whut?" when they discovered the shooting mechanics. Others (like me) came straight out of playing Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape Torment, and saw the shooting as "cool, I get to control this myself?"

I think this is the fundamental difference. I always saw Deus Ex as an RPG, with some shooter elements. As such, I always treated combat as something that was supposed to be level and EXP dependent, and not something that was purely based on reaction times. I'll grant that hit detection was quite bad, but I really can't see how else it could really have been improved, with c.2000 tech at any rate. I always expected an RPG system.

In fact, just so you know, I was part of the group who were all up in arms about Oblivion's new, more FPSey combat system back in '06. It's not that I don't like FPSes, or that I'm not good at them (god knows how many hours I've sunk into Battlefield 2 and its mods), its just that I prefer my FPSes distinct from my RPGs.

Although I can accept that there were those who saw it as more of an FPS, who might have been rightly disappointed.

Jerion
9th Aug 2010, 16:57
Well, I certainly agree with you about the second part, but I don't agree that DX's gunplay was bad.

I suppose it depends where you've come from. Some people may have come from Half Life, seen DX as a shooter, and gone "whut?" when they discovered the shooting mechanics. Others (like me) came straight out of playing Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape Torment, and saw the shooting as "cool, I get to control this myself?"

I think this is the fundamental difference. I always saw Deus Ex as an RPG, with some shooter elements. As such, I always treated combat as something that was supposed to be level and EXP dependent, and not something that was purely based on reaction times. I'll grant that hit detection was quite bad, but I really can't see how else it could really have been improved, with c.2000 tech at any rate. I always expected an RPG system.

In fact, just so you know, I was part of the group who were all up in arms about Oblivion's new, more FPSey combat system back in '06. It's not that I don't like FPSes, or that I'm not good at them (god knows how many hours I've sunk into Battlefield 2 and its mods), its just that I prefer my FPSes distinct from my RPGs.

Although I can accept that there were those who saw it as more of an FPS, who might have been rightly disappointed.

Have I seen you elsewhere on the 'net?

Prior to Deus Ex, I had played Star Trek Elite Force. In fact DX was my first taste of computer RPG. I found that while I do enjoy straight RPGs I more prefer FPS games with RP elements. Plain FPS can be a lot of fun but I really enjoy having some character development aspects. Throw that mix together just right and it makes for a delicious sandwich.

Pretentious Old Man.
9th Aug 2010, 19:49
Have I seen you elsewhere on the 'net?

Prior to Deus Ex, I had played Star Trek Elite Force. In fact DX was my first taste of computer RPG. I found that while I do enjoy straight RPGs I more prefer FPS games with RP elements. Plain FPS can be a lot of fun but I really enjoy having some character development aspects. Throw that mix together just right and it makes for a delicious sandwich.

Depends where you are on the net, my friend.

Unlikely that you've seen me. I only go on a few forums

1.) Total War Center
2.) This
3.) Skyscrapercity
4.) Armchairgeneral
5.) Militaryphotos

If you've not seen me there, then it's unlikely you've seen me around.:flowers:

Jerion
9th Aug 2010, 22:29
Depends where you are on the net, my friend.

Unlikely that you've seen me. I only go on a few forums

1.) Total War Center
2.) This
3.) Skyscrapercity
4.) Armchairgeneral
5.) Militaryphotos

If you've not seen me there, then it's unlikely you've seen me around.:flowers:

Nah, probably not then. You just remind me of a BF2/CoD4 player that I knew from an old clan. Went by the names of Daddy, Mio, and Self-Righteous Jerk.

FrankCSIS
10th Aug 2010, 01:10
They must be cousins.

Or part of the same shadow organisation.

Also, I'm reserving the name Pretentious Old Men if I ever decide to put a band together at 55 or up.

Pretentious Old Man.
10th Aug 2010, 13:17
They must be cousins.

Or part of the same shadow organisation.

Also, I'm reserving the name Pretentious Old Men if I ever decide to put a band together at 55 or up.

Now, Imma let you play at ruling the world, but I'm the best Pretentious Old Man of all time. You hear me? OF ALL TIME!

xsamitt
16th Aug 2010, 13:53
This is for all us DX1 Fans.Live long and prosper,no wait that's some other thang.lol
It doesn't get better than this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrJQw9u4U_w&feature=player_embedded#!

Pinky_Powers
16th Aug 2010, 17:01
Now, Imma let you play at ruling the world, but I'm the best Pretentious Old Man of all time. You hear me? OF ALL TIME!

I've come to believe that you are no older than thirty.

Of course, I've come to believe a number of things that turned out to be untrue. But still, there is my conviction.

Your pretension is to assume yourself matured at such a mediocre age.

Pretentious Old Man.
16th Aug 2010, 17:07
I've come to believe that you are no older than thirty.

Of course, I've come to believe a number of things that turned out to be untrue. But still, there is my conviction.

Your pretension is to assume yourself matured at such a mediocre age.

I'm 49, so still hardly old. However, older than most of the whippersnappers here, eh Pinky? ;)

And yes, I chose the name more for the Bob Page quote than due to actually being "old".

Also, who said anything about "mature"? :lmao:

Pinky_Powers
16th Aug 2010, 17:15
Also, who said anything about "mature"? :lmao:

I've been thinking deeply on a fine bottle of Bella Sera Merlot of late.

Pretentious Old Man.
16th Aug 2010, 17:35
I've been thinking deeply on a fine bottle of Bella Sera Merlot of late.

Have you indeed. Never been much of a Merlot man myself, but so long as you enjoy it, you're welcome to it.


:D

Pinky_Powers
16th Aug 2010, 17:47
Have you indeed. Never been much of a Merlot man myself, but so long as you enjoy it, you're welcome to it.


:D

You would offer me my own shirt? F**k you, and f**k your welcomes. I've already ingratiated myself with the 2008 vintage. :eek:

Red
16th Aug 2010, 17:51
Hmmm, intriguing debate

http://www.shrani.si/f/1f/UI/3Z8h83P3/1279220448355.png

Pretentious Old Man.
16th Aug 2010, 18:09
You would offer me my own shirt? F**k you, and f**k your welcomes. I've already ingratiated myself with the 2008 vintage. :eek:

2008? Yuk. Practically no time at all. You want at least 2006, preferably 2004 mate! :)

(I'm actually being serious on this one)

Pinky_Powers
16th Aug 2010, 18:15
2008? Yuk. Practically no time at all. You want at least 2006, preferably 2004 mate! :)

(I'm actually being serious on this one)

It all depends on the money I'm willing to spend at any given time. And Bella Sera is delightful even under a young ripening.

Pretentious Old Man.
16th Aug 2010, 18:26
It all depends on the money I'm willing to spend at any given time. And Bella Sera is delightful even under a young ripening.

Just as you please.

H.D.Case
24th Aug 2010, 23:08
Well, I certainly agree with you about the second part, but I don't agree that DX's gunplay was bad.

I suppose it depends where you've come from. Some people may have come from Half Life, seen DX as a shooter, and gone "whut?" when they discovered the shooting mechanics. Others (like me) came straight out of playing Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape Torment, and saw the shooting as "cool, I get to control this myself?"

I think this is the fundamental difference. I always saw Deus Ex as an RPG, with some shooter elements. As such, I always treated combat as something that was supposed to be level and EXP dependent, and not something that was purely based on reaction times. I'll grant that hit detection was quite bad, but I really can't see how else it could really have been improved, with c.2000 tech at any rate. I always expected an RPG system.

In fact, just so you know, I was part of the group who were all up in arms about Oblivion's new, more FPSey combat system back in '06. It's not that I don't like FPSes, or that I'm not good at them (god knows how many hours I've sunk into Battlefield 2 and its mods), its just that I prefer my FPSes distinct from my RPGs.

Although I can accept that there were those who saw it as more of an FPS, who might have been rightly disappointed.

Well, I find Half-Life (all parts) really boring, so I am not this TYPE, but I enjoyed Unreal 2, despite its apparent flaws, so I am not so much against finely-plot-framed shooters anyway (so much that although I felt a bit fed up with it having finished it, I am willing to replay it sometime). You may have a point that shooting in DX is not terrible. Maybe I should've written that I felt it lacked something. After all, I got the game after I played the demo, so if it was terrible, I would just leave it. What I feel is that you could only create epic moments yourself, let's say, by making a brave defence of Paul, but the fight itself was not very special. I wished I could have just leave the room and organize a shotgun-in-one-hand-terminator style battle of Wizna. Or remember the triads fighting with swords somewhere in Hong Kong tunnels? Or the never-ending alien&mutant spawn fighting in area 51? There was no pleasure in fighting with them. They were just pain in the neck, that's what they were. And that's what I mean.
However, I understand some other people may find it a fine-tuned system. After all, I was really looking forward to fighting in the new system in Oblivion. Unlike you : ) (could not finish the game, btw; second or third portal and I was yawning like...you know) But I think for that should be different difficulties - one is more apt at sneaking or prefers observation - lower diff. level. Feeling up to some action? Hard setting will suit you well.
On the other hand, I think you are probably right - technology had its limitations at that point. Maybe it was the best possible way. The way it was made.