PDA

View Full Version : New Deus Ex Not "Dumbed Down" for Consoles



Pages : [1] 2

Dr_Bob
12th Sep 2010, 16:43
Source (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103406-New-Deus-Ex-Not-Dumbed-Down-for-Consoles)


All gamers want to feel smart, regardless of platform, says Deus Ex: Human Revolution's lead designer Jean-Francois Dugas.

According to Dugas, Human Revolution's multiplatform design hadn't affected the substance of the game, but it had influence how it had been put together.

Dugas said that Eidos Montreal had looked at the first two games, and tried to preserve the essence of the Deus Ex series, while building a title that would appeal to a modern audience. He said that there wasn't as much difference between consoles and PCs as there had been, and that the team hadn't made the game simpler or taken anything out for console gamers.

Dugas said that his team was specifically trying to capture the feeling from the first game where a player could try different things and forge their own way through the game. "Players like to figure things out by themselves and they like to experiment; I think that's kind of timeless. They want to feel smart about their experience ... The first Deus Ex was one of the first games that really brought that type of choice to gamers, and I think that's something that all gamers want."

He did indicate, however, that the team was aware PC gamers and consoles gamers often approached games in a slightly different way, and so had designed the game to accommodate both. "We can have a very deep experience," he said. "But it's important that if you want to just jump in to it, you can jump in to it. It's not about removing complexity or cutting possibilities: it's about the way the complexity is introduced."

Deus Ex: Human Revolution will be released for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 in February 2011.

Pretentious Old Man.
12th Sep 2010, 16:46
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:m_7HeO8iChC4tM:http://images3.souq.com/uploaded/1208/c2ba9c8343daa2e3d1a5f0bfbb2b2513_10214045781229951835.jpg&t=1

pha
12th Sep 2010, 16:48
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/1848/orlylx.jpg

Ashpolt
12th Sep 2010, 17:19
http://theliberati.net/quaequamblog/wp-content/comical_ali.jpg

"We definitely don't have weapons of mass destruction!"

The sad thing is, some people will believe him.

JCpies
12th Sep 2010, 17:29
No, they're right, it's not dumbed down for consoles, it's made for consoles and dumbed down for PC.

mad825
12th Sep 2010, 18:09
No, they're right, it's not dumbed down for consoles, it's made for consoles and dumbed down for PC.
^
this

there are always basic UI features can could've been utilized for PC users (such as double-clicks) which wants implemented, suspiciously because of it "designed" for consoles/controllers.

pringlepower
12th Sep 2010, 18:11
^
this

there are always basic UI features can could've been utilized for PC users (such as double-clicks) which wants implemented, suspiciously because of it "designed" for consoles/controllers.

Double clicks?

mad825
12th Sep 2010, 18:17
Double clicks?

double clicking the mouse?

instead of having to highlight an item and then select an "ok" button (for example) double clicking will do the same but making it quicker.

Xenoc
12th Sep 2010, 18:26
Dugas stop spouting BS

Sotsiak
12th Sep 2010, 18:29
He did indicate, however, that the team was aware PC gamers and consoles gamers often approached games in a slightly different way, and so had designed the game to accommodate both.

How is this possible? Throw console gameplay details and PC gameplay details in one package?

I remember from the very old days, they had said that their priority was PCs, they would make the game for the PCs (we didn't even know that there would be consoles). Now they dumb it down because console gamers have a different approach, instead of releasing a slightly different version for them.

EDIT: Hmm, what did I expect: There is HR, cinematic takedowns etc...

Blade_hunter
12th Sep 2010, 19:00
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:m_7HeO8iChC4tM:http://images3.souq.com/uploaded/1208/c2ba9c8343daa2e3d1a5f0bfbb2b2513_10214045781229951835.jpg&t=1

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Romeo
12th Sep 2010, 19:15
I still find it intriguing that people elect to put themselves into a camp of console or computer, with the computer gamers assuming they're far and away more intelligent. Frankly I play both, for different genres, but I never look down on those who only play on console. To do so is to be an ignorent prick.

bryt
12th Sep 2010, 19:28
I still find it intriguing that people elect to put themselves into a camp of console or computer, with the computer gamers assuming they're far and away more intelligent. Frankly I play both, for different genres, but I never look down on those who only play on console. To do so is to be an ignorent prick.

this

Quicksilver_502
12th Sep 2010, 19:30
I still find it intriguing that people elect to put themselves into a camp of console or computer, with the computer gamers assuming they're far and away more intelligent. Frankly I play both, for different genres, but I never look down on those who only play on console. To do so is to be an ignorent prick.

thank you for injecting some rationality into what was otherwise a "grr damn console kiddies" thread.

pringlepower
12th Sep 2010, 19:36
I still find it intriguing that people elect to put themselves into a camp of console or computer, with the computer gamers assuming they're far and away more intelligent. Frankly I play both, for different genres, but I never look down on those who only play on console. To do so is to be an ignorent prick.

The real question is: Is Deus Ex dumbed down for PCs?

mad825
12th Sep 2010, 19:52
thank you for injecting some rationality into what was otherwise a "grr damn console kiddies" thread.

doesn't really solve anything.

it's not always the consumer/public that holds the hate but it's really the publisher and/or developer that holds the bias hate (chauvinism).

if there was a utopia of gamers then "exclusives" would be out of the picture and this interview/quote (from OP) would be non-existence as there would be no need.

more to the fact, what would be the point of other consoles? if this was really true.

Esnuk
12th Sep 2010, 20:07
I still find it intriguing that people elect to put themselves into a camp of console or computer, with the computer gamers assuming they're far and away more intelligent. Frankly I play both, for different genres, but I never look down on those who only play on console. To do so is to be an ignorent prick.

I fully agree. In my opinion both the PC and consoles are special in their own way and offer the same exciting experience. And always in my opinion, neither one nor the other must be diminished in any way for any reason.

Fluffis
12th Sep 2010, 20:19
I still find it intriguing that people elect to put themselves into a camp of console or computer, with the computer gamers assuming they're far and away more intelligent. Frankly I play both, for different genres, but I never look down on those who only play on console. To do so is to be an ignorent prick.

This is still faulty reasoning, just like all other times it has been written on this board.

The talk of dumbing down that is most common here, is not because the PC crowd think that console gamers are stupid. It's because developers seem to think that console gamers are stupid. There is a big difference.

It's also about the forced limitations on PC games, in order for the experience not to differ between platforms.

PC gamers simply don't want to have their games suffer because of these things.

Please don't jump to conclusions like that.

pha
12th Sep 2010, 20:25
The talk of dumbing down that is most common here, is not because the PC crowd think that console gamers are stupid. It's because developers seem to think that console gamers are stupid. There is a big difference.

It's also about the forced limitations on PC games, in order for the experience not to differ between platforms.

PC gamers simply don't want to have their games suffer because of these things.

Thank you for injecting some rationality into what was otherwise a "baaaaw elitist PC snobs" thread.

Esnuk
12th Sep 2010, 20:32
It's because developers seem to think that console gamers are stupid.

This is absolutely not true. DXHR developers are working hard to make it become an extraordinary game. Do not judge people you do not know if you can, because it is not pretty.


Please don't jump to conclusions like that.

What Romeo has said is not a hasty conclusion, but the truth.

WildcatPhoenix
12th Sep 2010, 20:40
This is absolutely not true. DXHR developers are working hard to make it become an extraordinary game. Do not judge people you do not know if you can, because it is not pretty.



What Romeo has said is not a hasty conclusion, but the truth.

No offense, Esnuk, but do you know the developers? Don't defend people you do not know if you can, because it can embarrass you in the long run.

Esnuk
12th Sep 2010, 20:53
No offense, Esnuk, but do you know the developers? Don't defend people you do not know if you can, because it can embarrass you in the long run.

You have not offended me, do not worry. It is important that everyone has the opportunity to express their opinions, as long as they have the opportunity. However, I do not need to know the developers in person to ascertain the quality of their product. Do not you think that all the material they have released so far is enough to judge positively or negatively? Moreover, the fact of being embarrassed is something really silly. It does not touch me even remotely. :rasp:

Kodaemon
12th Sep 2010, 20:58
DXHR developers are working hard to make it become an extraordinary game.

By removing half of what made the first game great and replacing it with generic Gears of War gameplay. I get ya.

Esnuk
12th Sep 2010, 21:02
By removing half of what made the first game great and replacing it with generic Gears of War gameplay. I get ya.

What "generic Gears of War gameplay" has to do with DXHR? :scratch:

Kodaemon
12th Sep 2010, 21:05
Cover system and health regeneration most obviously. A cover system that does not fit the rest of the game at that, forcing a switch into third person.

pha
12th Sep 2010, 21:06
What "generic Gears of War gameplay" has to do with DXHR? :scratch:

I've been asking myself the same question since 2008.

Esnuk
12th Sep 2010, 21:10
I've been asking myself the same question since 2008.

What do you mean?

Fluffis
12th Sep 2010, 21:26
This is absolutely not true. DXHR developers are working hard to make it become an extraordinary game. Do not judge people you do not know if you can, because it is not pretty.


If you look again, you'll see that I did not write "the developers". I wrote "developers", as in "console/game developers in general".



What Romeo has said is not a hasty conclusion, but the truth.

No, that is not the truth. There is no truth here; only opinion.

Romeo
12th Sep 2010, 21:51
This is still faulty reasoning, just like all other times it has been written on this board.

The talk of dumbing down that is most common here, is not because the PC crowd think that console gamers are stupid. It's because developers seem to think that console gamers are stupid. There is a big difference.

It's also about the forced limitations on PC games, in order for the experience not to differ between platforms.

PC gamers simply don't want to have their games suffer because of these things.

Please don't jump to conclusions like that.
Of course I do not hold PC gamers at fault for the current downward spiral in gaming. Just in the same sense I do not blame it on console players either. My issue lies with the numerous PC players - who you cannot deny exist; We have many on our forums here - who seem to think that any problem with gaming is never the PC's fault, it is consoles', of course. Because it utterly reeks of elitism. Hell, it usually makes me embarassed to admit I play about half my games on PC, as I don't want to be associated with that kind of thing.

Jerion
12th Sep 2010, 22:11
Crouch-walking around in the shadows to outsmart half-wit combat AI was one quarter of what made the first game great to you, Kodaemon? I think we live in different worlds. :hmm:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Sep 2010, 22:25
I think I know where this thread is going....

Popcorn, anyone?

http://i1189.photobucket.com/albums/z433/Forum_Moderator/EMOTICONS/popcornmachine.gif

mad_red
12th Sep 2010, 22:53
The real question is: Is Deus Ex dumbed down for PCs?

Exactly, it doesn't matter if DX isn't dumbed down for consoles if it's already dumbed down for a 'larger audience'.

sonicsidewinder
12th Sep 2010, 23:12
Popcorn, anyone?

Sweet please. That salty stuff is foul. And no, i don't want to pay 20 pence more for the next size box. :D


DE:HR huh? Course it's dumbed down to accomidate the controller. However, you can only say such things when comparing a game to a previous iteration that is 'more complex' than the current. Like this one.

Doesn't mean the game itself will be dumb, but it does mean that it could have been more complex on a PC. I stress the word 'could' here. Whether the complexity is necessary is an important question. Will it expand the game for each platform?

Dragon Age is an ultra 'Hell Yes!' to the question showing that a console variant must be dumbified to

A) Work.
and/or
B) Be accepted by it's audience.
(whether it 'must' be dumbified is for you to decide)

DA on the PC was more complex and made it all the more better. It suited the platform:

A) Work. - It worked well mouse and keyboard.

AND it was better for the PC audience:

B) Be accepted by it's audience. - Upped dificulty and more complex game-play.

This goes to show how yes, Deus Ex Human Revolution will be dumbed down for the PC. It's a simple fact that is unfortunate to many fans.
Eidos have simply said "Yeah we want the same experience for all platforms". They say this as a 'good thing'. I don't wanna sound harsh, but i would call it a tad lazy. Which is a shame. Bioware went out of their way to provide two (almost) separate products for each platform in terms of how they play. It was praised console side and PC side because each respective audience enjoyed how it played.

Nothing can be done now for Deus Ex:HR now (maybe the sequal?), but this goes to show how you CAN make the same experience more focused for each platform and separate audiences .

Having said that, I believe it'll be a good game, dumbed down or not.

jtr7
12th Sep 2010, 23:58
Of course I do not hold PC gamers at fault for the current downward spiral in gaming. Just in the same sense I do not blame it on console players either. My issue lies with the numerous PC players - who you cannot deny exist; We have many on our forums here - who seem to think that any problem with gaming is never the PC's fault, it is consoles', of course. Because it utterly reeks of elitism. Hell, it usually makes me embarassed to admit I play about half my games on PC, as I don't want to be associated with that kind of thing.

It's not nearly as often as you would believe, and when it is, it's not nearly as often elitism as it is the same anger you have expressed right there with a different target.

Fluffis
13th Sep 2010, 00:10
Of course I do not hold PC gamers at fault for the current downward spiral in gaming. Just in the same sense I do not blame it on console players either. My issue lies with the numerous PC players - who you cannot deny exist; We have many on our forums here - who seem to think that any problem with gaming is never the PC's fault, it is consoles', of course. Because it utterly reeks of elitism. Hell, it usually makes me embarassed to admit I play about half my games on PC, as I don't want to be associated with that kind of thing.



It's not nearly as often as you would believe, and when it is, it's not nearly as often elitism as it is the same anger you have expressed right there with a different target.


^^^What jtr7 said.

And also:

So are you saying that PC games are responsible for "dumbing down" in terms of oversimplified controls? Less resource management? Smaller levels? Of course you're not. But one of the platforms is... guess which one.

I suppose I am part of that whole elitist group, because I think that consoles are responsible for the dumbing down of games. Not because of the gamers, which you seem to imply that we think, but because of the developers. It's the developers that are treating console gamers as loveable morons, not the PC "elitists". Unfortunately, there seem to be far too many (any amount is too many, frankly) console gamers who go along with being treated like idiots. Some of them even seem proud of it. When you see stuff like that (it's everywhere), it's natural that the focus will shift a bit. But the core problem (and I think most "elitists" would agree with me) is still the fact that developers create dumbed down games, because that's what they think console gamers want.

hem dazon 90
13th Sep 2010, 00:41
I still find it intriguing that people elect to put themselves into a camp of console or computer, with the computer gamers assuming they're far and away more intelligent. Frankly I play both, for different genres, but I never look down on those who only play on console. To do so is to be an ignorent prick.

this


I think I know where this thread is going....

Popcorn, anyone?

http://i1189.photobucket.com/albums/z433/Forum_Moderator/EMOTICONS/popcornmachine.gif


http://omnomnom.org/omnomnom/omnomnom128492889288750000.jpg

jtr7
13th Sep 2010, 00:51
Also, ripping into the people fighting for a higher IQ in games and game design instead of backing them up, and addressing their tone separately, is being a prick in ways that always have to be spelled out, which is sad, not condescension. I don't care how offensive the term "dumbing down" is when "more accessible" is the same damned thing, without the wasted political correctness. Instead of encouraging underformed minds (not physical brains) to grow and stretch and be smarter and get used to complexity and optimizing their IQ (I use the term generically, not scientifically), making games more accessible encourages lazy brains, whether or not it actually leads to lazy-brained individuals. Fools and their money, soon parted, making people who could do better, rich for the short-term.

FrankCSIS
13th Sep 2010, 02:30
Pc, consoles, whatever. I will be convinced the game is not simplified, regardless of medium, if the options are not obviously laid out to me, if there are no crossroad moments with "press x for consequence x, press y for consequence y", if no big bold arrows suggest me where to go, and if the "four pillars" they've been actively PRing are not disgustingly blatant.

I'm not asking, nor hoping, for DX complexity times ten anymore, and I'm not necessarily pushing for DX's exact layout of complexity either, as some of it did not work the way it was intended. I'm just hoping to be respected in my intelligence, and that the game follows through relatively well with the decisions that I make. I think it's all very reasonable to ask. Now the man here says DX:HR will do just that. I will command him if it does, or never trust him again if it doesn't. And I do have a long, unforgiving memory when it comes to bs and lies.

Romeo
13th Sep 2010, 02:45
Pc, consoles, whatever. I will be convinced the game is not simplified, regardless of medium, if the options are not obviously laid out to me, if there are no crossroad moments with "press x for consequence x, press y for consequence y", if no big bold arrows suggest me where to go, and if the "four pillars" they've been actively PRing are not disgustingly blatant.

I'm not asking, nor hoping, for DX complexity times ten anymore, and I'm not necessarily pushing for DX's exact layout of complexity either, as some of it did not work the way it was intended. I'm just hoping to be respected in my intelligence, and that the game follows through relatively well with the decisions that I make. I think it's all very reasonable to ask. Now the man here says DX:HR will do just that. I will command him if it does, or never trust him again if it doesn't. And I do have a long, unforgiving memory when it comes to bs and lies.
I think that is a completely reasonable demand, and I share you opinion on the "give them one chance only" rule of devellopers.

Pinky_Powers
13th Sep 2010, 02:55
Pc, consoles, whatever. I will be convinced the game is not simplified, regardless of medium, if the options are not obviously laid out to me, if there are no crossroad moments with "press x for consequence x, press y for consequence y", if no big bold arrows suggest me where to go, and if the "four pillars" they've been actively PRing are not disgustingly blatant.

I'm not asking, nor hoping, for DX complexity times ten anymore, and I'm not necessarily pushing for DX's exact layout of complexity either, as some of it did not work the way it was intended. I'm just hoping to be respected in my intelligence, and that the game follows through relatively well with the decisions that I make. I think it's all very reasonable to ask. Now the man here says DX:HR will do just that. I will command him if it does, or never trust him again if it doesn't. And I do have a long, unforgiving memory when it comes to bs and lies.

Well said. And I truly hope for this too.

Kodaemon
13th Sep 2010, 05:00
Crouch-walking around in the shadows to outsmart half-wit combat AI was one quarter of what made the first game great to you, Kodaemon? I think we live in different worlds. :hmm:

No, it wasn't. Did I say it was? :confused:

In any case, it was still preferable to snapping into third person and mowing down hordes of baddies from behind a conveniently placed waist-high wall, which gets boring rather fast.

jtr7
13th Sep 2010, 05:31
As you know, he wants, but doesn't want, you to describe an example, and both sides know it's tedious and boring and not worth the effort, but feels like a direct victory if you don't. Or am I just assuming it's not about being constructive while half-pretending it is?

beastrn
13th Sep 2010, 06:03
A lot of people get confused and misinterpret what people actually mean when they say "consoles" - this really needs to stop.

When someone refers to "consoles" in a way that is demeaning, they're not talking specifically about hardware, or ease of installation, or anything that might offend a person trying to justify their gamerscore. What they are talking about is the typical person that console games are made for. People that have little interest in games other than to kill some guys on their big screen tv's and crack open a beer. The reality that, if a game is a modern console game, it will not be very complex and will be a very hand held experience. This is a truth you need to accept and stop getting worked up over: modern console games are targeted at low intelligence people. That's what console means and that's what consoles stand for.

I own every console and handheld. As do probably most people who want more from games than $90 tutorials with explosions. There's no excuse to call someone a 'pc elitist' just because they want to play games that respect their intelligence.

If you don't agree with the above, the question you need to ask yourself is: "Why am I getting upset over someone who's angry at stupidity?"

pringlepower
13th Sep 2010, 06:14
A lot of people get confused and misinterpret what people actually mean when they say "consoles" - this really needs to stop.

When someone refers to "consoles" in a way that is demeaning, they're not talking specifically about hardware, or ease of installation, or anything that might offend a person trying to justify their gamerscore. What they are talking about is the typical person that console games are made for. People that have little interest in games other than to kill some guys on their big screen tv's and crack open a beer. The reality that, if a game is a modern console game, it will not be very complex and will be a very hand held experience. This is a truth you need to accept and stop getting worked up over: modern console games are targeted at low intelligence people. That's what console means and that's what consoles stand for.

I own every console and handheld. As do probably most people who want more from games than $90 tutorials with explosions. There's no excuse to call someone a 'pc elitist' just because they want to play games that respect their intelligence.

If you don't agree with the above, the question you need to ask yourself is: "Why am I getting upset over someone who's angry at stupidity?"

Once they release Shadow of the Colossus for PC, i'll agree with you.

beastrn
13th Sep 2010, 06:21
PS2
Japan
Released 2005, pre-Xbox 360 (The Great Dumbing Down)

Your point is invalid.

Also, you're missing my point. Which is that the term "console" when used with today's implications relates to what I said above, and not "any piece of hardware that isn't a pc".

SotC was fairly great though :) Shame more people didn't buy it on release and instead waited 2-5 years for it to develop a mainstream identity.

Red
13th Sep 2010, 07:17
Hmmm... The Great Dumb Down Event. Sounds like the Big Bang. An end of an era. Final gunshot echoed as an exclamation mark to events that led up to that point... The beginning of era of stupidity and idiocy.

:)

NKD
13th Sep 2010, 07:44
A lot of the "dumbing down" people blame on consoles is actually a byproduct of hardware advancement.

Take the much-maligned third person melee takedowns in DXHR. Those are there strictly because it's the only way to have a dazzling graphical representation of a takedown, and dazzling graphics are a requirement these days. Try it in first person and the camera would be bobbing all over the place giving people motion sickness. Take it out completely and you have an unimpressive and generic "dude falls over" animation. And PC gamers are more graphics mongers than anyone, so blaming it on consoles is pretty absurd.

Yes, there are some interface issues that crop up with regards to controllers or SDTVs, but in terms of actual gameplay most of the "dumbing down" would have occurred regardless of consoles.

beastrn
13th Sep 2010, 08:35
A lot of the "dumbing down" people blame on consoles is actually a byproduct of hardware advancement.

Incorrect.


Take the much-maligned third person melee takedowns in DXHR. Those are there strictly because it's the only way to have a dazzling graphical representation of a takedown, and dazzling graphics are a requirement these days. Try it in first person and the camera would be bobbing all over the place giving people motion sickness. Take it out completely and you have an unimpressive and generic "dude falls over" animation. And PC gamers are more graphics mongers than anyone, so blaming it on consoles is pretty absurd.

Incorrect.

Who needs graphical representation of a takedown?
Who are dazzling graphics a requirement for?
Who gets motion sickness?
Why can't you come up with anything other than "generic dude falls over animation" when great alternatives aleady exist?
PC gamers may be graphics mongers, but why do you think a scripted cinematic kill animation falls under the banner of "graphics"?

There's one answer for all of those questions.


Yes, there are some interface issues that crop up with regards to controllers or SDTVs, but in terms of actual gameplay most of the "dumbing down" would have occurred regardless of consoles.

:rolleyes:

Ashpolt
13th Sep 2010, 08:57
Take the much-maligned third person melee takedowns in DXHR. Those are there strictly because it's the only way to have a dazzling graphical representation of a takedown, and dazzling graphics are a requirement these days. Try it in first person and the camera would be bobbing all over the place giving people motion sickness.

Aliens vs Predator (the most recent one), Chronicles of Riddick and a host of other games would disagree with you there. Takedowns can be done in first person, and done well. Third person is just the lazy option.


And PC gamers are more graphics mongers than anyone,

:lol: Yes, that's why the PC indie gaming scene is huge and constantly growing: because PC gamers are all "graphics mongers." Seriously, I can't think of a PC game since Crysis (2007!) which has sold based on its graphics.

NKD
13th Sep 2010, 09:06
Incorrect.

Incorrect.


Incorrect.

Incorrect.


Who needs graphical representation of a takedown?

People who spent hundreds of dollars on graphics cards? People who expect a level of visual flair on par with other modern games?


Who are dazzling graphics a requirement for?

The modern graphics-obsessed gamer.


Who gets motion sickness?

People prone to motion sickness tend to get it. Go watch one of the third-person takedowns from the footage, and then imagine that the camera is right in AJ's eyeballs. It'd hurt more to watch it than it would to be the guy getting stabbed!


Why can't you come up with anything other than "generic dude falls over animation" when great alternatives aleady exist?

Could you give an example of well-polished and visually appealing first person melee takedowns or melee combat? I can't think of any, but obviously I'm not a game database.


PC gamers may be graphics mongers, but why do you think a scripted cinematic kill animation falls under the banner of "graphics"?

There's more to graphics than just polygons and shaders. Animations and presentation lead to emotional impact just as much as the fidelity of the graphics themselves. Being able to see AJ approach a guy, armblades or other weapon at the ready, seeing the look on his face at the moment of impact, and the guys body hitting the floor. This can be visually interesting on modern hardware far more than it would have been 10 years ago.

Nothing in that process has anything to do with consoles, and you could just as easily make a console game without it, but it wouldn't look nearly as impressive to the visually-oriented gamer.


Aliens vs Predator (the most recent one), Chronicles of Riddick and a host of other games would disagree with you there. Takedowns can be done in first person, and done well. Third person is just the lazy option.

Can't say I have played Chronicles of Riddick. Though I distinctly remember the Aliens taking down people in third person, with a rather nasty shot of tail stabbage. I didn't play all the way through though, so I could be mistaken there.


:lol: Yes, that's why the PC indie gaming scene is huge and constantly growing: because PC gamers are all "graphics mongers." Seriously, I can't think of a PC game since Crysis (2007!) which has sold based on its graphics.

Did I say all PC gamers? Obviously there are a lot of "unintelligent" gamers on the PC too, as people here would call them, playing their "dumbed down" indie games.

Ashpolt
13th Sep 2010, 09:28
Can't say I have played Chronicles of Riddick. Though I distinctly remember the Aliens taking down people in third person, with a rather nasty shot of tail stabbage. I didn't play all the way through though, so I could be mistaken there.

Yeah, you're mistaken. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qYAfwdME-o&feature=related) There were no third person takedowns in the game at all.

Here's the same thing for aliens. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAp_GpPne_o&feature=related)


Did I say all PC gamers? Obviously there are a lot of "unintelligent" gamers on the PC too, as people here would call them, playing their "dumbed down" indie games.

No, but you said PC gamers moreso than consoles. And since when was "indie" shorthand for dumbed down? It's rapidly becoming one of the only ways to get half-deep games any more. Indie isn't all Peggle you know.

Xenoc
13th Sep 2010, 09:41
Aliens vs Predator (the most recent one), Chronicles of Riddick and a host of other games would disagree with you there. Takedowns can be done in first person, and done well. Third person is just the lazy option.

^^ This

Philljc
13th Sep 2010, 09:54
Of course I do not hold PC gamers at fault for the current downward spiral in gaming. Just in the same sense I do not blame it on console players either. My issue lies with the numerous PC players - who you cannot deny exist; We have many on our forums here - who seem to think that any problem with gaming is never the PC's fault, it is consoles', of course. Because it utterly reeks of elitism. Hell, it usually makes me embarassed to admit I play about half my games on PC, as I don't want to be associated with that kind of thing.

lol. Get the **** out. If wanting great, complex, interesting and innovative games makes me an elitist then you can tattoo it on my face. Sorry you don't feel the same way, it just means you can accept copy + paste games because you have low standards. How many times have they referred to things like Rainbow 6 for a cover system? God forbid they come up with something original.

Rewind time, look when games started getting stupid, look which platform they all moved to, look where every single tactical shooter has turned into an arcade massacre-fest to please simple minded children and stop being ignorant. Then read this direct quote from the recent interview:


Deus Ex hasn't been toned down as far as complexity is concerned to cater for consoles according to game designer Jean Francois Dugas.

So then, doesn't that infer games often are toned down for console users? Just not this one? This one with health regen and every other overused gameplay mechanic they pinched from every other game?

It must be nice being so naive, I wish I was that way, then I could be like the rest of the sheep and not think for myself and just go with it.

Hammich
13th Sep 2010, 10:10
I think everything mentioned above is an excellent reason to purchase Human Revolution for PC, as there is hope that the mod community will give us things like 1st person take downs and cover. As the game was built around regenerating health though a health system like the original will be more difficult to implement.

Though I have a fear that if this sells well the developers will assume that the regenerating health and third person takedowns/cover will be missed if they remove them in sequels (/DX Remakes)

As for why gameplay and interfaces have been homogenised with the complexities broken down, beyond what has been discussed to death the answer is that it is simply far more expensive to properly implement a massive array of gameplay mechanics while keeping up with the industry AAA standard in graphics and animation. And when something takes 200-odd man hours to implement even a preliminary version for testing you want to be confident that feature will work with the gameplay before you even start.

Of course the situation isn't helped by the fact that most publishers regard the PC as a piracy hotbed that costs them billions of theoretical $$$ per annum so most wouldn't see why they should pay extra to give PC gamers special treatment. It would be nice if more in the industry shared Valve's take on piracy...

lithos
13th Sep 2010, 10:43
Of course the situation isn't helped by the fact that most publishers regard the PC as a piracy hotbed that costs them billions of theoretical $$$ per annum so most wouldn't see why they should pay extra to give PC gamers special treatment. It would be nice if more in the industry shared Valve's take on piracy...

Or if they spent five seconds thinking about how the trade-in market for console titles is exactly the same as piracy.

beastrn
13th Sep 2010, 11:40
Or that on every private torrent site Xbox360 has over 300% the piracy numbers than any other platform

Hammich
13th Sep 2010, 12:12
Case-in-point: Crytek and Crysis 2

Belboz
13th Sep 2010, 14:21
I think you'll find now that on the piracy front xbox games lead the way as the ones being downloaded the most, they were pretty high up the ladder when it was said that pc games were on the way out due to all the piracy. the stats for downloads on piratebay were something like 75% xbox games compared to 43% pc games. Although alot of that xbox downloads are the dlc's that come as extras that you have to then pay more money for when extra's that used to be available for pc game owners would be free. You even have to pay for patches for games for xbox games when they become available on live. what would you do if on a pc when the next version of drivers for your ati card or nvidia card came out you would then have to pay 10 units of your local currency to get them, without them you can't play that new game you've bought. would you buy them or wait for someone to upload them to a pirate site and download them for free.

K^2
13th Sep 2010, 14:55
You know, if I didn't hang around Ion Storm forums during development of Invisible War and haven't read exactly the same statements on how multiplatform development won't affect the gameplay, how they are not dumbing the game down, I might have, well, not believed it exactly. But maybe I'd stay hopeful that it is at least somewhat true.

As it stands, what I'm reading here is what I read on Ion Storms' forums almost verbatim, including reactions from the fans, including the band of die-hard pro-Ion-Storm fans who kept insisting that IW will be as good as DX until they installed the game.

HR, so far, is going along exactly the same route, with one notable exception. When IW was rushed to release, EM stepped back and decided to finish HR. So at least quality-wise, there will be less/no disappointment. But in terms of gameplay, same story, same party lines, same inevitable outcome.

Romeo
13th Sep 2010, 15:12
Or that on every private torrent site Xbox360 has over 300% the piracy numbers than any other platform
Wow, I would really like to see the stats where you show me the 360 has 300% more piracy than PC, because I'm having an excepetionally tough time believing any letter of that statement.

The Monochrome Man
13th Sep 2010, 15:16
lol. Get the **** out. If wanting great, complex, interesting and innovative games makes me an elitist then you can tattoo it on my face.

You get this on the consoles as well - but, as on the PC, they come from indie developers. On the PC we've got the benefit of Valve, who've managed to remain somewhat independent despite raking in the cash, and the numerous indies scattered around thanks the openness of the platform (Yahtzee?).

Previous generation consoles left very little room for indie developers, they got squeezed out after the PSx Yaroze suite died out. However, Live Arcade has given them an avenue on the Xbox and a new startup called Codename is trying to bring them to the PS3.

Given that almost all the innovation comes from the indie market, that doesn't leave much reason to be so hardnosed about the platform.


To follow on from the rest of your post - Games started getting 'stupid' when EA started buying out most of the industry in the late nineties/early 00's, and it was that shift in business model that stung us all. EA didn't feel the need to compete on quality, but quantity, and its shovelware mindframe has polluted the industry ever since. If you want someone to blame, blame the publishers, not the consoles.

Kodaemon
13th Sep 2010, 15:25
I have no trouble believing it. I have a few 360 owners among my friends, and they all mostly play pirated games. Funny thing, the same people buy most of their PC games legally. Two most important factors:

1. console games are ridiculously overpriced compared to PC games, especially that...

2. ...PC games frequently feature nice extras even in normal editions, while console games mostly come in standardised packaging with no extra stuff at all

lithos
13th Sep 2010, 16:12
When someone refers to "consoles" in a way that is demeaning, they're not talking specifically about hardware, or ease of installation, or anything that might offend a person trying to justify their gamerscore. What they are talking about is the typical person that console games are made for. People that have little interest in games other than to kill some guys on their big screen tv's and crack open a beer. The reality that, if a game is a modern console game, it will not be very complex and will be a very hand held experience. This is a truth you need to accept and stop getting worked up over: modern console games are targeted at low intelligence people. That's what console means and that's what consoles stand for.

100% agree.

There's nothing wrong with this (but you've hit the nail on the head, regarding target demographics.) By all means, make games for the beer-swilling, only-playing-this-'cause-the-footy's-rained-out yobbos, but don't try to pass it off as if the same game will somehow appeal to those who expect more from games than a five hours of limited gameplay tacked together with cutscenes.

Don't try to dress mutton as lamb, as the saying goes. Or Michael Bay as Fellini, Dan Brown as Dostoevsky. Just as you appeal to the casuals, you lose the dedicated gamers.

And why appeal only to those who are less likely to buy games regularly?


I own every console and handheld. As do probably most people who want more from games than $90 tutorials with explosions. There's no excuse to call someone a 'pc elitist' just because they want to play games that respect their intelligence.

Exactly. I don't see how - especially on a developer's forum - wanting better games is a bad thing. (Especially in regards to a threequel of one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time that was famed for its depth and complexity.)


If you don't agree with the above, the question you need to ask yourself is: "Why am I getting upset over someone who's angry at stupidity?"

Maybe they've got a guilty conscience.


I have no trouble believing it. I have a few 360 owners among my friends, and they all mostly play pirated games.

Same here. Either pirated or bought as a trade-in, which has exactly the same effect (the difference being that there are actually people profiting off traded-in games and it would be easier to go after them - five seconds of googling will get you their address - than it would be to try to exact payment from some twelve-year-old kid or track down an international warez group.)

Pretentious Old Man.
14th Sep 2010, 07:30
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/111/1119900p1.html

Read it and weep. Not on the consoles, but part of the same crappy mindset.

About as fit to bear the name Neverwinter as the new XCOM is to bear the name of X-COM.

beastrn
14th Sep 2010, 10:41
Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Cleric

*hangs self*

NKD
14th Sep 2010, 10:45
Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Cleric

*hangs self*

Not an old school AD&D player are you? Real AD&D isn't about being some level 40 munchkin with three classes. There's a lot to be said for the classics.

But this has nothing to do with Deus Ex so we shouldn't derail the thread too much.

Pretentious Old Man.
14th Sep 2010, 11:36
Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Cleric

*hangs self*

I am with you, brother.

lithos
14th Sep 2010, 11:48
After launch, we'll be supplementing the game with more and more character classes, so expect to see old favorites like Paladins, Barbarians, Monks and Bards fairly quickly.

Read that as:


After launch, we'll be supplementing the game with more and more character classes, so expect to see old favorites like Paladins ($9.99,) Barbarians ($9.99,) Monks ($9.99,) and Bards ($9.99) fairly quickly.

Ninjerk
14th Sep 2010, 12:01
What do you mean?

I presume he means that the DX IP is being shoehorned into GoW gameplay.

Pretentious Old Man.
14th Sep 2010, 12:04
Read that as:

The industry has grown up.

El_Bel
14th Sep 2010, 12:47
http://theliberati.net/quaequamblog/wp-content/comical_ali.jpg

"We definitely don't have weapons of mass destruction!"

The sad thing is, some people will believe him.


You know that they never found WoMD right?

Edx
14th Sep 2010, 13:32
You know that they never found WoMD right?

hehe, yea he got the joke wrong. It was funny because he kept saying that Iraq was winning right up until the last minute.

Pretentious Old Man.
14th Sep 2010, 13:47
hehe, yea he got the joke wrong. It was funny because he kept saying that Iraq was winning right up until the last minute.

By far his greatest comments was "Number one world terrorist? GEORGE BUSH!"

demon boy
14th Sep 2010, 14:26
I'm losing patience with this forum. It's like a broken record that you just can't take off the turn table. So much of the debate on this forum stems from people who play their games on the PC and insist on insulting people who play or develop games on consoles. It's annoying. The theory that games are dumbed down for consoles is more full of holes than Swiss cheese. In fact, in recent years, the majority of the most complex and innovative games have been console games. The only genre where I actually see dumbing down for consoles is the RTS genre (for obvious reasons).

Deus Ex, while a great game, was clearly much simpler than Human Revolution is going to be. I sometimes wonder what people in here are looking at or even talking about. Did you guys all play the same Deus Ex as I did back in 2000? It was great for its time but this one is obviously a big step forward by the looks of it.

Anyways, I have finally realized that this forum is no different than the comments section in a lot of youtube vids or on gametrailers.com. It's just a big **** fight between PS3, XBox360 and PC loyalists. I guess the reason it took me so long to see that is because I generally have no loyalties whatsoever to any gaming platform. I see consoles and gaming rigs as tools that you have to use in order to play video games. Depending on the game you want to play, there will be an ideal tool for the job. The last thing I would ever do is engage in an argument about which tool is better than the other. That's like saying, "This hammer is better than that wrench." It's just stupid and I find it disappointing that so much of the debate in here is fueled by the same tired, pathetic platform superiority talk that 14 year olds use to pollute the comments sections of so many video sites.

xsamitt
14th Sep 2010, 14:37
It may help to remember that many of us here are concerned after the first sequel,IW was pulled on us,albeit with a different group of people who designed one of the worst sequels in history.We have been burned badly by IW and we are taken the advice of Father Spector,who said,Demand more from developers.

Ashpolt
14th Sep 2010, 15:14
I'm going to say this simply, without flaming:


In fact, in recent years, the majority of the most complex [...] games have been console games.


Deus Ex, while a great game, was clearly much simpler than Human Revolution is going to be.

Please justify these two statements. Particularly the second one. Because I don't see any way in which HR is more complex than Deus Ex.

Hammich
14th Sep 2010, 16:06
It may help to remember that many of us here are concerned after the first sequel,IW was pulled on us,albeit with a different group of people who designed one of the worst sequels in history.We have been burned badly by IW and we are taken the advice of Father Spector,who said,Demand more from developers.

That's pretty unfair, Invisible War is a good game!
It just couldn't live up to it's predecessor. I played IW first, took it for what it was, and enjoyed it. Though I can understand that lost features and imposed restraints that were not there in the original was a kick to the nuts of any Deus Ex fan, calling it one of the worst sequels in history is plain ridiculous. In a world with Halo 2 and Worms 3d you could've done a lot worse.

But yes, demand more from developers!!:mad2:

Pretentious Old Man.
14th Sep 2010, 16:17
That's pretty unfair, Invisible War is a good game!
It just couldn't live up to it's predecessor. I played IW first, took it for what it was, and enjoyed it. Though I can understand that lost features and imposed restraints that were not there in the original was a kick to the nuts of any Deus Ex fan, calling it one of the worst sequels in history is plain ridiculous. In a world with Halo 2 and Worms 3d you could've done a lot worse.

I'm going to say something which, given my so-called "PC elitist" stance, may be shocking: Halo 2 is a better game than Invisible War. Halo 2 tried to be a straight-up mindless shooter with an OK story and then-unmatched connectivity with other players. In this it largely succeeded. IW, on the other hand, failed so miserably at being an immersive simulator that I can bearly condense it here. Terrible performance, tiny levels, dumbed down to the point of having almost no RPG elements at all, a truly atrocious story that butchered the canon to boot, terrible voice acting, terrible endings, almost no immersion due to crappy game-y mechanics, poor hit detection, laughable physics, no swimming, stupid factions, multi-choice there for the sake of it rather than for meaningful reasons, no more manually enterable codes or passwords...must I really go on?

Ashpolt
14th Sep 2010, 16:20
@Hammich: I'd agree that Invisible War is a good game in its own right. But I'd also agree with xsammitt when he says that it's a terrible sequel. The two things are by no means mutually exclusive. I expect DXHR to be at least a reasonably good game in its own right - i.e. when taken as an "action game with very mild RPG elements" a la Bioshock - but I don't expect it to be a good sequel.

JCpies
14th Sep 2010, 16:33
"This hammer is better than that wrench."

No, I definately think the Sickle is better, and that's all I managed to get out of your 'entire' post.

Edit;

Though I do have something to say. Perhaps if Deus Ex became one of the most influencial games, (with more developers following its lead in gameplay mechanics) then there would probably be more games today like Human Revolution. I think we shouldn't look at it as if it has the standard of Deus Ex, but wether it beats the standard of games today.

Pretentious Old Man.
14th Sep 2010, 17:05
@Hammich: I'd agree that Invisible War is a good game in its own right.

Again, I disagree. See my post above.

Hammich
14th Sep 2010, 17:21
I'm going to say something which, given my so-called "PC elitist" stance, may be shocking: Halo 2 is a better game than Invisible War. Halo 2 tried to be a straight-up mindless shooter with an OK story and then-unmatched connectivity with other players. In this it largely succeeded. IW, on the other hand, failed so miserably at being an immersive simulator that I can bearly condense it here. Terrible performance, tiny levels, dumbed down to the point of having almost no RPG elements at all, a truly atrocious story that butchered the canon to boot, terrible voice acting, terrible endings, almost no immersion due to crappy game-y mechanics, poor hit detection, laughable physics, no swimming, stupid factions, multi-choice there for the sake of it rather than for meaningful reasons, no more manually enterable codes or passwords...must I really go on?


Because the original Deus Ex had stellar physics and voice acting and swimming which of-course made it the phenomena it was. >.>

Oh and guess what, I played it on Xbox!
BEFORE Deus Ex 1
and you know what? I ENJOYED IT!
YES it could've been far better, YES the gameplay mechanics were crude and oversimplified but it still gave you a breadth of options to pursue your goal, (for the time) excellent character interaction, atmosphere you could cut with a knife and if it weren't for Invisible War I likely wouldn't have ever played Deus Ex and appreciated it as you obviously do.

Considering it was one of the first games to implement physics where the player could manipulate objects in very specific ways it wasn't too bad, this was 2003 remember?

You don't sound like a PC elitist so-much as a cynic. Give IW a break.

Happy
14th Sep 2010, 17:26
I suppose it all comes down to what the game is designed for.

Worms was a simplistic and awesome game that would work well for a casual gamer. Baldours gate was difficult with a steep learning curve. Both great games but designed to fill different niches.

From everything I've read, it would appear that DE:HR is being designed for a more mass market/casual gamer. That's OK for them to do that. It may miss some of the complexity from DE, but in the end, if you understand what the game is being designed for, you can take it as it's intended :)

Hammich
14th Sep 2010, 17:30
I suppose it all comes down to what the game is designed for.

Worms was a simplistic and awesome game that would work well for a casual gamer. Baldours gate was difficult with a steep learning curve. Both great games but designed to fill different niches.

From everything I've read, it would appear that DE:HR is being designed for a more mass market/casual gamer. That's OK for them to do that. It may miss some of the complexity from DE, but in the end, if you understand what the game is being designed for, you can take it as it's intended :)

If Human Revolution is successful sales-wise perhaps the development team can afford to make some braver design choices in the next Deus Ex game or even just flesh it out further so the complexity is there for those willing to explore it.

Cronstintein
14th Sep 2010, 17:35
demon boy
Deus Ex, while a great game, was clearly much simpler than Human Revolution is going to be.




Please justify these two statements. Particularly the second one. Because I don't see any way in which HR is more complex than Deus Ex.

Well the conversation system looks more complex for one. Different randomly selected starting points for conversations that change the convo chain? Pretty interesting and innovative idea actually. As well as convo mods to detect lies? And NPCs that lie? All pretty cool. :thumb:

The hacking system is also certainly more complex. It remains to be seen whether it's better or not, but it's certainly more complex. Not a big fan of mini games but we'll see.

Pretentious Old Man.
14th Sep 2010, 17:36
Because the original Deus Ex had stellar physics and voice acting and swimming which of-course made it the phenomena it was. >.>

Oh and guess what, I played it on Xbox!
BEFORE Deus Ex 1
and you know what? I ENJOYED IT!
YES it could've been far better, YES the gameplay mechanics were crude and oversimplified but it still gave you a breadth of options to pursue your goal, (for the time) excellent character interaction, atmosphere you could cut with a knife and if it weren't for Invisible War I likely wouldn't have ever played Deus Ex and appreciated it as you obviously do.

Considering it was one of the first games to implement physics where the player could manipulate objects in very specific ways it wasn't too bad, this was 2003 remember?

You don't sound like a PC elitist so-much as a cynic. Give IW a break.

The fact that you played it before DX1 doth not a more valid opinion make. Lower expectations do not equal a better product. If I were to sit down and actually have (shudders) *fun* with a Call of Duty game, that would exceed my expectations. Doesn't make the game good.

I also find it...weird that you chose to only quote the most minor of my points, like swimming and voice acting. Virtually every gameplay system was removed. IW was little more than a generic first person shooter with a shiversomely poor story (honestly, even without DX1, I just can't tolerate IW's story), and terrible PC performance (not that you would know about that.)

TBH, if IW's story were even remotely OK, I would live with it. As it was, it was godawful. Everyone was evil, just to varying degrees, old protaganists all seemed to become villains, the multi-path stuff was shiversomely repetitive and predictable, and all the endings were crap. I'd rather play any generic Gears of War rubbish than Invisible War, with or without the DX name.

Ashpolt
14th Sep 2010, 18:07
I suppose it all comes down to what the game is designed for.

Worms was a simplistic and awesome game that would work well for a casual gamer. Baldours gate was difficult with a steep learning curve. Both great games but designed to fill different niches.

From everything I've read, it would appear that DE:HR is being designed for a more mass market/casual gamer. That's OK for them to do that. It may miss some of the complexity from DE, but in the end, if you understand what the game is being designed for, you can take it as it's intended :)

That's the problem. The people on this forum who are complaining are the ones who would like a new Deus Ex game to target an older, more intelligent audience - like the first game did - and not target the more mainstream, casual audience, because that's what screwed up Invisible War.

Just because something achieves what it's aiming for doesn't make it a good game if its sights are set low from the start.


Well the conversation system looks more complex for one. Different randomly selected starting points for conversations that change the convo chain? Pretty interesting and innovative idea actually. As well as convo mods to detect lies? And NPCs that lie? All pretty cool. :thumb:

The hacking system is also certainly more complex. It remains to be seen whether it's better or not, but it's certainly more complex. Not a big fan of mini games but we'll see.

I'm intrigued by the convo system, but I'm yet to be convinced that it's actually going to be anything more than PR spin on what was there in the first place. The "conversation battles" that they talk about essentially just mean if you pick the wrong options, you can't get a certain outcome - something RPGs have been doing for years. The idea of reading people's moods via their facial expressions is cool, but in the footage we've seen, facial expressions are barely even discernable. Having an aug that says "THIS PERSON IS ANGRY" or "THIS PERSON IS LYING TO YOU" doesn't add complexity, in fact quite the opposite.

The hacking minigame certainly sounds more complex, but as you say, whether it's better or not is a different thing. That's an area I could've done without complexity, because it's something you're going to be doing constantly, and if it's too time consuming it's going to get really, boring, really fast.

On the other side of the coin, though, they've removed lockpicks and multitools, removed limb damage, removed health management (except for the vague promise of items that will boost the rate of regen,) removed shadow stealth, added in third person so you can see around corners thus ruining stealth and making combat a lot easier, removed melee combat except for insta-kill takedowns, rolled augs and skill points into a single system ("lesser granularity") etc etc. I think it's still fairly safe to say DXHR will not be as complex as DX.

lithos
14th Sep 2010, 18:15
I'm intrigued by the convo system, but I'm yet to be convinced that it's actually going to be anything more than PR spin on what was there in the first place. The "conversation battles" that they talk about essentially just mean if you pick the wrong options, you can't get a certain outcome - something RPGs have been doing for years.

That's exactly what PO'ed me about that Moral Panic we went through a few years back with things like Bioshock and GTAIV. You couldn't wade through a pre-launch analysis or press release without seeing the phrase "moral choices" about a dozen times. Then when you got to doing said choices in game the outcome was...you get a slightly different cutscene, and that's about it.

Games like BG had the balls to truly make you pay - make the wrong choice, and a whole swathe of gameplay might be permanently cut off.

And the "conversation battles" would work better if we could read exactly what Adam is going to say, rather than just something that gives us the gist. It didn't work in Alpha Protocol for those reason, I don't see how it'd work in HR.

Pinky_Powers
14th Sep 2010, 18:47
And the "conversation battles" would work better if we could read exactly what Adam is going to say, rather than just something that gives us the gist.

No, they wouldn't.

nomotog
14th Sep 2010, 18:56
Arguing about which one is more complex I see. I'll go ahead and get in on this.

Inventory management
DX1 - You juggle weapons mods and support items in a grid inventory. (Point DX1)
DX:HR - You juggle weapons and mods in a grid inventory.

Combat
DX1 - You shoot people from a first person view.
DX:HR -You shoot people from a first person view and can take cover and blind fire. (Point DX:HR)

Conversations
DX1 - You can talk to random people for flavor lines and talk to other characters with with dialog trees.
DX:HR - You can talk to random people for flavor lines, talk to other characters with with dialog trees, and get brain implants to help you be better at it. (Point DX:HR)

Stealth
DX1 - You sneak around avoiding being spotted by guards and trying to stay in the dark. (Point DX1)
DX:HR -You sneak around trying to avoid being spotted.

Hacking
DX - You walk up to a computer and press the hack button.
DX:HR -You walk up to the computer press the hack button and play a mini game. (Point DX:HR)

Damage
DX - You take damage to each body part and heal with med-kits. (Point DX1)
DX:HR - You take damage to one life bar and heal over time.

Blowing open doors
DX - You can use explosives or big guns to brake open most locks.
DX:HR - You can use explosives or big guns to brake open most locks and you can punch threw some walls. (Point DX:HR)

Take-downs
DX - You sneak up behind a guard and hit the attack button.
DX:HR - You sneak up behind a guard or two and hit the attack button hard or soft to choose the kind of take down. (Point DX:HR)

Skills and arguments
DX - Has skills bought with exp, with augments and upgrades being found in the world. (Point DX1)
DX:HR - Has augments found in the world then upgraded with exp.

That's all the comparisons i could think of. If you have more, go ahead and post them. It really doesn't matter if DX:HR is more complex or if DX1 is more complex. A being complex game doesn't make it a good game. It just makes it a complex game.

Ashpolt
14th Sep 2010, 20:26
And the "conversation battles" would work better if we could read exactly what Adam is going to say, rather than just something that gives us the gist.

I don't do this very often, but I'm going to point out a positive of DXHR! Shock!

-You can read exactly what Adam is going to say. The options are presented as "gists", but as you highlight each one, the full line is displayed.


Combat
DX1 - You shoot people from a first person view.
DX:HR -You shoot people from a first person view and can take cover and blind fire. (Point DX:HR)

You could take cover in the first game too. And in pretty much every FPS ever made. Just because it doesn't have a big button prompt on screen saying "PRESS X TO TAKE COVER" and doesn't flip you into an alternate perspective to show your character behind cover, doesn't mean you're not in cover. Behind a wall? Crouched behind a crate? You're in cover.


Conversations
DX1 - You can talk to random people for flavor lines and talk to other characters with with dialog trees.
DX:HR - You can talk to random people for flavor lines, talk to other characters with with dialog trees, and get brain implants to help you be better at it. (Point DX:HR)

As above, jury's out on this one. Brain implants may well actually make it less complex by just screaming the correct choices at you.


Hacking
DX - You walk up to a computer and press the hack button.
DX:HR -You walk up to the computer press the hack button and play a mini game. (Point DX:HR)

See my post above.


Blowing open doors
DX - You can use explosives or big guns to brake open most locks.
DX:HR - You can use explosives or big guns to brake open most locks and you can punch threw some walls. (Point DX:HR)

How is that more complex? Fists are just another method of doing the same thing - but by the sounds of it, very limited in their use.


Take-downs
DX - You sneak up behind a guard and hit the attack button.
DX:HR - You sneak up behind a guard or two and hit the attack button hard or soft to choose the kind of take down. (Point DX:HR)

In DXHR, the entire thing is automated, whereas in DX it was player controlled. Definitely not more complex in DXHR.

demon boy
14th Sep 2010, 20:44
I'm going to say this simply, without flaming:





Please justify these two statements. Particularly the second one. Because I don't see any way in which HR is more complex than Deus Ex.


The original Deus Ex, while one of my all time favorites, is no where near as complex as HR. The combat was simplistic and actually quite poor even for its time. The main character was a card board cut-out with no depth or personality whatsoever. The graphics were ho-hum even for its time. The gameplay, while easily the best part of the package, was sometimes a bit silly and gimmicky. You could keep people from entering rooms by simply stacking boxes in front of the door. There were lots of little gamey quirks like that which, while good for a laugh, totally destroyed any sense of realism that the world was attempting to create. Also the AI was atrocious and the dialogue was often poorly written.

Obviously 10 years makes a hugge difference and I'm sure the budget for HR is exponentially larger than the original as well but to suggest that Deus Ex was more complex or advanced is laughable in my opinion.

hem dazon 90
14th Sep 2010, 20:57
http://i32.tinypic.com/2vjueyb.jpg

Ashpolt
14th Sep 2010, 20:57
The original Deus Ex, while one of my all time favorites, is no where near as complex as HR. The combat was simplistic and actually quite poor even for its time. The main character was a card board cut-out with no depth or personality whatsoever. The graphics were ho-hum even for its time. The gameplay, while easily the best part of the package, was sometimes a bit silly and gimmicky. You could keep people from entering rooms by simply stacking boxes in front of the door. There were lots of little gamey quirks like that which, while good for a laugh, totally destroyed any sense of realism that the world was attempting to create. Also the AI was atrocious and the dialogue was often poorly written.

Obviously 10 years makes a hugge difference and I'm sure the budget for HR is exponentially larger than the original as well but to suggest that Deus Ex was more complex or advanced is laughable in my opinion.

You know none of what you just wrote has any relevance to complexity, right? All your examples say is that DXHR will be more polished and technologically advanced than DX....which, as you say, is a ten year old game.

nomotog
14th Sep 2010, 20:58
I don't do this very often, but I'm going to point out a positive of DXHR! Shock!

-You can read exactly what Adam is going to say. The options are presented as "gists", but as you highlight each one, the full line is displayed.



You could take cover in the first game too. And in pretty much every FPS ever made. Just because it doesn't have a big button prompt on screen saying "PRESS X TO TAKE COVER" and doesn't flip you into an alternate perspective to show your character behind cover, doesn't mean you're not in cover. Behind a wall? Crouched behind a crate? You're in cover.



As above, jury's out on this one. Brain implants may well actually make it less complex by just screaming the correct choices at you.



See my post above.



How is that more complex? Fists are just another method of doing the same thing - but by the sounds of it, very limited in their use.



In DXHR, the entire thing is automated, whereas in DX it was player controlled. Definitely not more complex in DXHR.

In my post I was talking only in terms of which was more complex. Not necessarily which one was better. I was just countering your argument that DX:HR was less complex.

Pinky_Powers
14th Sep 2010, 21:00
You know none of what you just wrote has any relevance to complexity, right? All your examples say is that DXHR will be more polished and technologically advanced than DX....which, as you say, is a ten year old game.

Yeah, that was what I noticed too. He doesn't seem to understand what's really being discussed here.

demon boy
14th Sep 2010, 21:12
You know none of what you just wrote has any relevance to complexity, right? All your examples say is that DXHR will be more polished and technologically advanced than DX....which, as you say, is a ten year old game.

Ok then why don't you tell me why exactly you believe that the original is more complex (as you define it) than HR will be. I'm guessing it has something to do with limb damage and/or button configurations but I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Why don't you tell me how you would define 'complexity' so that I can more adequately respond to your question.

Ashpolt
14th Sep 2010, 22:37
Ok then why don't you tell me why exactly you believe that the original is more complex (as you define it) than HR will be. I'm guessing it has something to do with limb damage and/or button configurations but I don't want to jump to any conclusions. Why don't you tell me how you would define 'complexity' so that I can more adequately respond to your question.

Already done! (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1493447&postcount=87) (Hint: Read the last paragraph.)

As for how I'd define "complexity"....well, I'd start here, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complexity) I guess.


In my post I was talking only in terms of which was more complex. Not necessarily which one was better. I was just countering your argument that DX:HR was less complex.

Sure, understood - but most of my counter-points were about complexity too.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
14th Sep 2010, 22:39
http://i32.tinypic.com/2vjueyb.jpg

Too funny! :D

Cronstintein
14th Sep 2010, 23:18
I would have to say DX1 gets the point for opening doors complexity. With the lockpicks/multitools/nades all viable for opening most doors.

Limited destructible walls is pretty gimmicky to me tbh. I'd rather have a lockpick aug or electric-card-lock-reader-confuser-aug (obviously with a better name lol)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
14th Sep 2010, 23:25
I'd rather have a lockpick aug or electric-card-lock-reader-confuser-aug (obviously with a better name lol)

Hehe, love it. :D

demon boy
14th Sep 2010, 23:31
Already done! (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1493447&postcount=87) (Hint: Read the last paragraph.)

As for how I'd define "complexity"....well, I'd start here, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complexity) I guess.





Your post is a little odd when you really take a step back an look at it. First of all, you point out some of the new elements that HR features that are under-developed or non-existent in DX but you then say that, despite the obvious superiority of these features, you don't consider them to be more complex. Why? Because you say so, that's why.

The conversation system is obviously way beyond what was present in the original but you seem to have decided not to count that one. The hacking has actually been turned into something interesting and also far more complex but that one doesn't matter to you either. Your defense of DX's stealth system is really confusing. Stealth sucked in that game. You often had to navigate blind through the game. Someone could be right around the corner and you wouldn't know until you rounded the corner. It was a little disappointing for a hi-tech future spy to have basically no spatial awareness or sensory perception beyond what was right in front of his face. HR actually seems to have legitimate stealth gameplay as well as the cover system (not present in the first game) and yet you have somehow decided that this is an area where the original has the edge in terms of complexity?

The health system is one area where the original was more complex. The limb damage and need to manage medkits was more of a concern than a regenerating system is likely to ever be. That being said, I think this is more of a stylistic design decision. The elimination of the potential need to back track in order to scavenge medkits was obviously the motivation here and I can't say that I am against that. Medkits have sort of been phased out of gaming due to their annoyance. I don't consider having to acquire medkits as adding anything to the game but that's just me. I will miss the limb damage though.

The skill points and augmentations system has to be seen in order to provide an adequate comment on it. I've heard what the devs have said about it but there is still quite a bit of grey area to me. I can't really comment on how the character development systems of the 2 games will compare to eachother.

What I can comment on is that the story, environments, characters and dialogue seem to be on a completely different level and yes, they are more complex. Perhaps, for you, complexity can not involve the characters, plot or game world but for me, it does. DX was a lot of fun at the time but if HR were somehow (completely impossible scenario) released at the exact same time as DX, which one do you think people would have raved about?

NKD
15th Sep 2010, 00:13
Don't waste your time demon boy. Arguing with some of these people is like arguing with a wall. Actually, arguing with a wall is better because you don't have to listen to its crap: walls can't move from thread to thread single-handedly ruining an entire forum.

Ashpolt
15th Sep 2010, 01:10
The conversation system is obviously way beyond what was present in the original but you seem to have decided not to count that one. The hacking has actually been turned into something interesting and also far more complex but that one doesn't matter to you either. Your defense of DX's stealth system is really confusing. Stealth sucked in that game. You often had to navigate blind through the game. Someone could be right around the corner and you wouldn't know until you rounded the corner. It was a little disappointing for a hi-tech future spy to have basically no spatial awareness or sensory perception beyond what was right in front of his face. HR actually seems to have legitimate stealth gameplay as well as the cover system (not present in the first game) and yet you have somehow decided that this is an area where the original has the edge in terms of complexity?

A lot of the points you make I've already responded to in this post. (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1493527&postcount=91) To respond to your points in turn though, and expand on my original responses in places:

-The conversation system has the potential to be more complex than the original, but we haven't seen any evidence of that yet, we've just had PR spin - and what they've said could, in all honesty, be little more than a fancy way of describing what was present in the first game. ("If you fail at the conversations, you may not be able to do certain things!" - choosing the wrong conversation options blocked off certain paths in the first game as well, and does in many RPGs.) I will grant that this may turn out to be a step up from the original game, however, if it's done well.

-Hacking - Hacking is technically more complex here, I'll agree - but it's not an area that needs complexity, because it's something you're going to be repeating goodness knows how many times throughout the game, and it carries a very real danger of getting tedious after a while if it's too time-consuming (played Bioshock? Remember the hacking in that?)

-Stealth - for a start, they've taken out shadow stealth completely. That's one whole pillar of stealth gameplay gone. Secondly, just because you couldn't see round corners in the first game doesn't mean you were navigating blind - you could listen for guards' footsteps, peek out using the lean keys, or later on could get an aug that would let you see through walls. It just meant you could see what your character could see, rather than having what is essentially a built-in cheat to let you see enemies around corners, which takes most of the challenge out of stealth.


The health system is one area where the original was more complex. The limb damage and need to manage medkits was more of a concern than a regenerating system is likely to ever be. That being said, I think this is more of a stylistic design decision. The elimination of the potential need to back track in order to scavenge medkits was obviously the motivation here and I can't say that I am against that. Medkits have sort of been phased out of gaming due to their annoyance. I don't consider having to acquire medkits as adding anything to the game but that's just me. I will miss the limb damage though.

Deus Ex offered the choice (and, on that note, so did Invisible War) between regenerating health or not. Why couldn't DXHR do the same?


The skill points and augmentations system has to be seen in order to provide an adequate comment on it. I've heard what the devs have said about it but there is still quite a bit of grey area to me. I can't really comment on how the character development systems of the 2 games will compare to eachother.

More info is needed here before finally comparison can be made, sure, but at a basic level - they've taken two complimentary systems, and mixed them together into just one. It may work fine - though it does spoil player fantasy a bit - but as we're talking complexity here rather than quality, it seems a step backwards in that regards.


What I can comment on is that the story, environments, characters and dialogue seem to be on a completely different level and yes, they are more complex. Perhaps, for you, complexity can not involve the characters, plot or game world but for me, it does.

Personally, I'm far more about gameplay than story etc - a great story is nice, but it's just the icing on the cake for me: a terrible game with a great story is still, at heart, a terrible game. So yes, you're right to point out that this isn't a priority for me, at least compared to gameplay.

However, I don't see how you can say that DXHR's story, environments, characters and dialogue seem to be a degree of magnitude better than that of the original given how little we've been given to work with - and to be honest, even that little seemed fairly clunky to me, putting the symbolism front and center (Icarus) rather than keeping it subtle, pretty standard dialogue ("Looky here, we got ourselves a boy scout!", "I'll send you to hell!", "You'll never find them" / "I'll never stop looking" etc etc) and so on. Sure, the environments are more detailed, but this is a game being released in 2011 getting compared to one released in 2000 - there'd be something severely wrong if that wasn't the case.

Again though, unless you have some secret info that the rest of us don't have, we're talking quality here rather than complexity. There will be no way to judge how complex the story is until the game comes out, which is why I didn't mention it before.


DX was a lot of fun at the time but if HR were somehow (completely impossible scenario) released at the exact same time as DX, which one do you think people would have raved about?

This point makes absolutely no sense. DXHR would, of course, have made more waves were it released back in 2000 - because its graphics would have been absolutely miles ahead of anything else at the time. Some of its gameplay mechanics - primarily the third person cover system - would, at the time, have been completely new, so that would've garnered a lot of comment (note: that's definitely not saying it's an improvement or that it's innovative now, just that it would've been unheard of in 2000.) And, of course, no-one would've been able to play it back then, because neither the consoles nor the PC tech existed.

If we take a more balanced comparison, and instead of taking DXHR back to 2000, we bring DX into 2011, complete with all the graphical upgrades and advancements in AI (and more decent voice actors willing to work on video games) that modern gaming entails and, for the sake of this argument, we assume the original Deus Ex never existed so these are essentially 2 entirely new similar but unrelated games: then chances are they'd both get roughly the same amount of raving, but from different crowds. The more hardcore crowd would praise Deus Ex, for its focus on immersion and deliberately slow pacing (at least at the start) whereas the more Halo or Call of Duty style crowd would praise DXHR for its emphasis on the cinematic and instant-gratification action gameplay. Which one of those two games would stand out more in the current gaming market? Well, I think you can probably answer that one yourself.

But again, you're bringing up a point that has little or nothing to do with complexity, which is what your original statement (and, indeed, this topic) was about. We can discuss quality all day, but complexity is a different matter entirely.

nomotog
15th Sep 2010, 01:45
The conversation system is more complex then the original. It was before we heard about this new system.

Actually I don't know if i care for it myself. The idea of social combat sounds silly to me, but before we heard about that we knew it was more complex. It has the same stuff that DX1 had, but now you can buy augments to improve your "talking power". That's not just more complex. That is good complex not empty complex.

Pinky_Powers
15th Sep 2010, 03:30
Actually I don't know if i care for it myself. The idea of social combat sounds silly to me,

It goes by another name, and it's one of the most important skills an operative can learn; manipulation.

Studying body language, facial twitches and basic profiling to aid in your manipulation of a target, to get them to do what you want, is absolutely priceless. Oblivion tried it and failed, Mass Effect 1 had a single mission that touched on this sort of thing... if this system works in-game as well as EM claims it does, it will be a nice landmark in game design.

There is nothing silly about it.

beastrn
15th Sep 2010, 03:40
nomotag/demon boy/NKD - just got destroyed up this this thread.

Game set match, Ashpolt.

You guys are ridiculous and have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Period.

Romeo
15th Sep 2010, 03:48
nomotag/demon boy/NKD - just got destroyed up this this thread.

Game set match, Ashpolt.

You guys are ridiculous and have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Period.
...Tough-guy Tuesday? :rolleyes:

pringlepower
15th Sep 2010, 03:58
...Tough-guy Tuesday? :rolleyes:

*Tennis saying Tuesday

Romeo
15th Sep 2010, 04:15
*Tennis saying Tuesday
LOL

Tough-tennis-guy Tuesday?

pringlepower
15th Sep 2010, 04:22
LOL

Tough-tennis-guy Tuesday?

I've always thought that Nadal was augmented. Those topspins can't be human.

lithos
15th Sep 2010, 06:18
Arguing about which one is more complex I see. I'll go ahead and get in on this.
Combat
DX1 - You shoot people from a first person view.
DX:HR -You shoot people from a first person view and can take cover and blind fire. (Point DX:HR)

Er, you can take cover in ANY shooter. The idea is to get behind something which bullets can't penetrate, and stay there. Granted, the difference here (which is a pattern I'm noticing in modern games,) is that in HR, the onus is one the game to tell you where to take cover, whereas in DX it was up to the player.

Since when is "blind fire" important? Because that's how anyone who uses firearms for a living is trained, right? You've got a cover system and regenerating health - now you don't even want to risk getting hit even though all it takes to fix is to just leave the console/computer for ten minutes while the game's running?


Take-downs
DX - You sneak up behind a guard and hit the attack button.
DX:HR - You sneak up behind a guard or two and hit the attack button hard or soft to choose the kind of take down. (Point DX:HR)

Addendum: you sneak up behind a guard in HR, press a Magic Button, and the game takes down the the guard with no input from the player, which works all the time, every time, resulting in no sense of accomplishment for the player, but you do get a cutscene that'll be entertaining for about the first three times you view it. (NOTE: still haven't heard what happens if another guard stumbles across Adam performing a takedown.)


That's all the comparisons i could think of. If you have more, go ahead and post them. It really doesn't matter if DX:HR is more complex or if DX1 is more complex. A being complex game doesn't make it a good game. It just makes it a complex game.

It does matter when there are a dearth of complex games. Also, if a vast majority of the games marketing campaign involves riding the coattails of one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time...you know, ain't broke, don't fix it.

avenging_teabag
15th Sep 2010, 06:56
I would have to say DX1 gets the point for opening doors complexity. With the lockpicks/multitools/nades all viable for opening most doors.

I thought that lockpicks/multitools were an example of bad compexity - imo, they were useless, obnoxious clutter that added nothing to the gameplay. I'm glad they're gone.

lithos
15th Sep 2010, 07:05
I thought that lockpicks/multitools were an example of bad compexity - imo, they were useless, obnoxious clutter that added nothing to the gameplay. I'm glad they're gone.

But removing them removes the opportunity for unique multiple paths through a level. And replayability.

NKD
15th Sep 2010, 09:47
nomotag/demon boy/NKD - just got destroyed up this this thread.

Game set match, Ashpolt.

You guys are ridiculous and have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Period.

Go away troll.

Hammich
15th Sep 2010, 09:51
But removing them removes the opportunity for unique multiple paths through a level. And replayability.

no it doesn't it just means that there might be other challenges to reach alternative entrances/disable electrical systems beyond pulling x number of magic devices out of your inventory and interacting with the power circuitboard which is always so conveniently right next to the device you wish to disable

beastrn
15th Sep 2010, 10:11
Go away troll.

No troll here just someone shaking their head at your inability to comprehend clear and concise points rammed down your throat. :rolleyes:

lithos
15th Sep 2010, 10:35
no it doesn't it just means that there might be other challenges to reach alternative entrances/disable electrical systems beyond pulling x number of magic devices out of your inventory and interacting with the power circuitboard which is always so conveniently right next to the device you wish to disable

So...your multiple paths might consist of pressing a button, or pressing a different button? Or walking through one entrance, and running through another?

Brockxz
15th Sep 2010, 10:40
ok, more complex or not, let's see.

Takedowns:
In DXHR you sneak up to enemy (or enemies) and press magic button to execute takedown cutscene. I guess there is no way to fail it. You just press the button and it works.
In DX1 you must sneak up to enemy and must be close enough to succeed and also need to target for example his head (when you try to hit with melee weapon) to succeed for sure. You can miss, you can get spotted by enemy etc.
Conclusion: Seems DX1 is a lot more complex and not so fail proof as it is in DXHR. Still the question is - what happens if someone sees me doing takedown in DXHR. Am I invulnerable during that takedown scene or not.

Stealth:
As already Ashpot said (agree on absolutely all points about this element with him) - they took out shadow stealth and that's the whole system gone. So we are left with cover base (line of sight) stealth and the only difference from first game that now we magically stick with our back to the walls. Also it seems there is absolutely none danger to look around corner. Once again fail proof system. In DX1 there is always danger to be spotted by enemies if you look around corner using lean option and you have to listen for enemy footsteps etc to determine if there is any danger or not.
Conclusion: Seems DX1 is far complex in this aspect.


Hacking:
Agree, DX1 was way too simple in this aspect. You just take that skill and you got option to press hack button once you interact with hackable objects. There is only difference how long you can be in hack mode and how fast you hack terminals etc. Simple and govern by one skill (how many points you take).
In DXHR you hacking is supported by augmentation and it involves minigame (still haven 't seen it). Also there is a lot of games who make hacking as minigame but for now, i haven 't seen any game that actually make it fun for more than a few times. Examples, Bioshock with making pipeline from source to target avoiding obstacles. Fun at start but after few times it wasn't even so hard to get to target without failing (even if you don 't take any tonic to help hack objects). Mass Effect - press the button you see on screen (on console, haven't tried PC version). Imo this is the worst hacking minigame and such minigames are in many console games (not only hacking but also to make minigame to make some special move after you damaged boss or whatever). Also there is MAss Effect 2 with new hacking minigame - find the fragment you see above avoiding some obstacles (better than the first games minigame but still not really fun to do.) Also there is hacking in Fallout 3 where you try to make a word (this was actually one hacking minigame i would prefer in DX too).
Conclusion: OK, DXHR obviously wins complexity contest here but is it really necessary to have such minigames? OK, we need to see this before judge if this will be any good or the same boring bioshock, mass effect etc hacking minigames.

Conversation:
For now Don 't see really difference between DX1 and DXHR but that's because we haven 't seen it actually how conversation dialogs influence gameplay and what choices and consequences we will get from those choices. This for now is open question who is more complex etc.
Conclusion: need to wait for more video info not just what PR tells us how great the system is.

Tools to overcome obstacles:
OK, we will have the same choices, stealth, combat, conversation etc, We will be able to pick up objects and stack them to get to higher platforms we can 't get by other means. We will be able hack to open doors, destroy doors, make even holes in the wall to get to other room (even this is limited to predetermined points so actually it is not so great. And I believe for more spectacular outcome they will put some enemy standing behind such wall. All i can say lame game design. Also there will be locked doors with pads to enter code to get to next room. So we will need to find the code etc. Ok, that's for now all i can say about all this in DXHR but in DX1 we had multitools and lockpicks - one more choice to overcome obstacles. So guess which system is more complex? ;)

Ok that's all for now.

avenging_teabag
15th Sep 2010, 11:36
But removing them removes the opportunity for unique multiple paths through a level. And replayability.
*snicker* Like you ever left any door behind unopened for want of a lockpick. Come on now.

Taking one operation (opening a door) and arbitrarily dividing it in two does not add anything to gameplay or replayability, i.e. like taking swimming and dividing it to river water and sea water. It's unnecessary.

NKD
15th Sep 2010, 11:48
No troll here just someone shaking their head at your inability to comprehend clear and concise points rammed down your throat. :rolleyes:

http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/39024/sport-bike-turning-circles/boxxy-trolling.jpg

beastrn
15th Sep 2010, 12:16
Ah go back to 4chan you gentleman of the world whom I sincerely respect.

Blade_hunter
15th Sep 2010, 13:20
Conclusion: Seems DX1 is a lot more complex and not so fail proof as it is in DXHR. Still the question is - what happens if someone sees me doing takedown in DXHR. Am I invulnerable during that takedown scene or not.

You are vulnerable during the takedowns

For me the conversations, so the social battles are in theory more evolved and complex than what we had before, and only that.
I will tell why, and of course that's just theoretic, so take it as a game design theory.

First thing, when a social battle occurs, the attitude of the adversary is different each time you will try any specific conversation, and to obtain the wanted outcome you have to read the adversary's body expression.
In fact, where in old games you can have a wanted outcome by simply picking a predetermined answer which is always the same on each replays, here, you there is different ways to obtain these outcomes, and only if you have the ability to guess correctly.

The complexity of the DX 3's conversation system isn't due to the outcomes themselves, that's how you can obtain the wanted outcome(s).
Because you can have only two outcomes, let's say, there is a guy who knows something you want to know, and you want this information.
The outcomes can be, you win and the guy is convinced and give you the info or you lose and the guy will tell you nothing for example.
Actually this isn't revolutionary, but the thing that is different is the fact you don't have to pick a predetermined dialog sequence, you have here to guess what dialog option can "destabilize" your adversary.

I would like to explain more clearly that point, but I have difficulties to explain this.


*snicker* Like you ever left any door behind unopened for want of a lockpick. Come on now.

Taking one operation (opening a door) and arbitrarily dividing it in two does not add anything to gameplay or replayability, i.e. like taking swimming and dividing it to river water and sea water. It's unnecessary.

There is a point to make doors that can be open differently because even the skills in Deus Ex were made also for things that are uncommon for both tools.
So the replayability is here
If everything in Deus Ex that can be opened with a lockpick could also be made with a multitool and also the contrary, then there is no point, but actually you are wrong, because somethings can be opened with a lockpick, some others with multitools, and so on. Also your example here is a nonsense, no really, it's like if I have a weapon that can use two types of ammunition and they are the same, there is no sense for doing this.
In Deus Ex there is sense in that matter

Brockxz
15th Sep 2010, 13:36
You are vulnerable during the takedowns

For me the conversations, so the social battles are in theory more evolved and complex than what we had before, and only that.
I will tell why, and of course that's just theoretic, so take it as a game design theory.

First thing, when a social battle occurs, the attitude of the adversary is different each time you will try any specific conversation, and to obtain the wanted outcome you have to read the adversary's body expression.
In fact, where in old games you can have a wanted outcome by simply picking a predetermined answer which is always the same on each replays, here, you there is different ways to obtain these outcomes, and only if you have the ability to guess correctly.

The complexity of the DX 3's conversation system isn't due to the outcomes themselves, that's how you can obtain the wanted outcome(s).
Because you can have only two outcomes, let's say, there is a guy who knows something you want to know, and you want this information.
The outcomes can be, you win and the guy is convinced and give you the info or you lose and the guy will tell you nothing for example.
Actually this isn't revolutionary, but the thing that is different is the fact you don't have to pick a predetermined dialog sequence, you have here to guess what dialog option can "destabilize" your adversary.

I would like to explain more clearly that point, but I have difficulties to explain this.
Thanks for the clarification on takedown vulnerability.
I agree with you about conversation system. If you will need to read body expressions etc it is more satisfying and more complex than dx1 conversation system but for now we haven 't seen any video of this how it works and what different choices and consequences we can get. For now it's all PR from Eidos Montreal. Untill i will see trailer to show me one conversation done for example in three different ways explaining what is happening and why i lose or win conversation battle, I won't be convinced that it works and is more complex and is greater system than DX1 simple pick a choice and get the same answer system.

lithos
15th Sep 2010, 14:15
*snicker* Like you ever left any door behind unopened for want of a lockpick. Come on now.

Taking one operation (opening a door) and arbitrarily dividing it in two does not add anything to gameplay or replayability, i.e. like taking swimming and dividing it to river water and sea water. It's unnecessary.

No, but it adds depth. You might as well argue that the newspaper articles were worthless in the original DX, or the datacubes shouldn't contain anything else other than the necessary information to move the game forward, or that those emails were useless, or that passwords for computers shouldn't be anything symbolic, like they were in the original. It was this "useless" information that made DX great, just as offering a device that works on electronics and one that works on mechanical locks offers variety, depth and player choice. Which - and I'm sure there are few who would disagree with me on this - is what Deus Ex is all about.

There's no reason why the simple mesh gate at the back of Queen's Tower in DX or the manholes in Hell's Kitchen would have an electronic or computer-controlled lock. Or why the elevators wouldn't have keypads. Depth. Variety. Realism.

You might as well argue it was pointless to have an assault rifle because you already had a pistol; after all, they both do the same thing. They kill the NPCs. It's unnecessary to have two weapons that do the same thing. Any differences are just arbitrarily put in there.

Also, I'd like to know how you expect a lockpick to be used on a turret or camera directly.

Not only that, but having different means to open different locks gives the incentive for the developers to create different paths through the level. Why have two entrances if there's no difference between them? If it takes the same skills open them, there's no point in making two entrances. I suppose you could have one entrance that allows for a direct assault, and one that allows allows for the stealthy approach, but since both those approaches will result in the same outcome, isn't that just an arbitrary difference, and therefore unnecessary, right?

In fact, since Eidos have said it's a linear narrative in DX3, why not dispense with this whole multiple-paths BS altogether? Why not play the story out with the set-piece rigidity of Call of Duty? You're gonna find Tong one way or another in the Hive, right, so why bother with the speech checks, the security guard's lost PDA, or paying the bouncer?

Actually, why bother with the story? It's just an arbitrary bunch of thoughts some writer's come up with, and not necessary to the shiny things and explosions, and therefore unnecessary. You don't need a story shoot stuff or blow stuff up.

Blade_hunter
15th Sep 2010, 14:24
That's even why I added the fact that's a game design theory, in therms of idea, the system is complex, and even deep, I actually find it more complex, second how it sounds end even second the developer's promises, actually that's just it.

I know and understand that some people can stay skeptical about this, because I know there can be reasons for it.
I remember the Faction system of Invisible War for example who was something great in therms of idea and finished to disappoint a lot of people, because that was just a tasty chocolate topping around an empty cake, hiding something highly simplified.

I actually stay with the Idea it's more complex, of course we can "hack" the social battle with an aug, but actually if done right the augmentation, I hope, is giving more subtle information, rather than the guy is lying to me or the girl is trying to date with me, no really, I prefer something that shows the health status of my adversary for example (heart beat, sweating, adrenalin level and such), something that can also help to seduce my victim with pheromones.
Actually the possibilities are open.

Ok, in a game for example nothing like pheromones will really work, but to translate this in a game, that will change the options available to us, as for certain augmented people using pheromones against us, that could be interesting since the fighting would be harder that way.

In the whole game they presented that's the conversation system who was the best thing (I omit the things common with DX that are good to see even if they are too few)

lithos
15th Sep 2010, 14:39
I remember the Faction system of Invisible War for example who was something great in therms of idea and finished to disappoint a lot of people, because that was just a tasty chocolate topping around an empty cake, hiding something highly simplified.

The problem with the factions, I found, was that it was an idea that was slavishly adhered even though it pretty much ruined the game. It wasn't in the first game, because they were intent of driving a linear plot.

With the factions in DX, they wanted to keep the players' choice of allegiance as uninfluenced as possible. Which was noble in theory, but in execution, I found that I couldn't care less about any of the factions. They were all bastards.

Not only that, since they would to keep it as open-ended as possible, you'd end up with weird situations where one faction would be so annoyed they'd send a hitsquad after you. And then after you killed that hitsquad, they'd come back and say "All right. You survived. Try not to annoy us again."

nomotog
15th Sep 2010, 15:31
Er, you can take cover in ANY shooter. The idea is to get behind something which bullets can't penetrate, and stay there. Granted, the difference here (which is a pattern I'm noticing in modern games,) is that in HR, the onus is one the game to tell you where to take cover, whereas in DX it was up to the player.

Since when is "blind fire" important? Because that's how anyone who uses firearms for a living is trained, right? You've got a cover system and regenerating health - now you don't even want to risk getting hit even though all it takes to fix is to just leave the console/computer for ten minutes while the game's running?


It's not about what is better or harder. DX:HR has the same first person combat as DX1 and it has blind fire cover. That's more complex.



Addendum: you sneak up behind a guard in HR, press a Magic Button, and the game takes down the the guard with no input from the player, which works all the time, every time, resulting in no sense of accomplishment for the player, but you do get a cutscene that'll be entertaining for about the first three times you view it. (NOTE: still haven't heard what happens if another guard stumbles across Adam performing a takedown.)


It's about the same input from the player in both. A stun-rod to the back takes out a guard. If it doesn't, then there stunned letting you hit them again. It's not that complex. DX:HR Is also more complex in that you can do a take down on more then on guard at a time and that you choose lethal or non lethal with each take down.

I guess People consider the idea that DX:HR could be more complex then DX1 to be some kind of impossibly, but DX1 was wasn't that complex and games have been getting more complex.

Ashpolt
15th Sep 2010, 15:48
It's not about what is better or harder. DX:HR has the same first person combat as DX1 and it has blind fire cover. That's more complex.

DXHR doesn't have lean keys.


DX:HR Is also more complex in that you can do a take down on more then on guard at a time

That's not more complex, that's more automation: it just means it's exactly as easy to kill two guards (in certain circumstances) as it is one. Thus, less tactical planning and less skillful execution required.

Happy
15th Sep 2010, 16:15
That's the problem. The people on this forum who are complaining are the ones who would like a new Deus Ex game to target an older, more intelligent audience - like the first game did - and not target the more mainstream, casual audience, because that's what screwed up Invisible War.

Just because something achieves what it's aiming for doesn't make it a good game if its sights are set low from the start.

Not to play devils advocate here, but if the game receives mass critical sales a la GTA, won't it be a "good" game?

Worms (my simplistic example) is a great game, yet it is very, very simple and easy to grasp and loads of fun to play with friends.

DE:HR can possibly do the same thing. Be "simple," easily accessible to a wide range of gamers, and fun to play. The design of the game seems to be targeting all those aspects and if it meets them, I'm sure it will be a good game.

On a personal level, I loved DE becuase I couldn't just run 'n' gun, I had to think. but then again, there are millions of people that love run 'n' gun games like Duke Nukem, CoD, MoH, HALO, and others. I don't but they do. the games they play are still good, just not my cup o' tea.

I guess because the name of this game is DE:HR, I'm expecting something similar to the first version, but for my PoV it looks like they'll try and imitate IW.

Thanks for reading :)

nomotog
15th Sep 2010, 16:55
DXHR doesn't have lean keys.


Good point. You could argue about which is more complex cover systems or lean keys, but I will call it a tie



That's not more complex, that's more automation: it just means it's exactly as easy to kill two guards (in certain circumstances) as it is one. Thus, less tactical planning and less skillful execution required.

Again not about skill or how hard it is. It's about how complex the system is.

Ashpolt
15th Sep 2010, 16:57
Not to play devils advocate here, but if the game receives mass critical sales a la GTA, won't it be a "good" game?

Sure a game can sell well and be great. Similarly, a game can be fantastic and sell poorly, or terrible but sell millions. Sales figures and quality are not necessarily related.


DE:HR can possibly do the same thing. Be "simple," easily accessible to a wide range of gamers, and fun to play. The design of the game seems to be targeting all those aspects and if it meets them, I'm sure it will be a good game.

If they can make DXHR accessible to all without sacrificing the depth or quality of the experience then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and by all means go for as many sales as you can. The problem is that DXHR appears to be making design decisions based purely on projected sales figures (i.e. "what's trendy at the moment") regardless of the fact that they will most likely negatively effect the game - you know exactly what gameplay elements I'm talking about, so no need to go into that debate again.

Confusingly, you then seem to contradict yourself in the following paragraphs:


On a personal level, I loved DE becuase I couldn't just run 'n' gun, I had to think. but then again, there are millions of people that love run 'n' gun games like Duke Nukem, CoD, MoH, HALO, and others. I don't but they do. the games they play are still good, just not my cup o' tea.

I guess because the name of this game is DE:HR, I'm expecting something similar to the first version, but for my PoV it looks like they'll try and imitate IW.

Exactly. DXHR is aiming to bring in the "run 'n' gun" crowd, and following in the footsteps of Invisible War as it does so.

Happy
15th Sep 2010, 18:02
Sure a game can sell well and be great. Similarly, a game can be fantastic and sell poorly, or terrible but sell millions. Sales figures and quality are not necessarily related.



If they can make DXHR accessible to all without sacrificing the depth or quality of the experience then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and by all means go for as many sales as you can. The problem is that DXHR appears to be making design decisions based purely on projected sales figures (i.e. "what's trendy at the moment") regardless of the fact that they will most likely negatively effect the game - you know exactly what gameplay elements I'm talking about, so no need to go into that debate again.

Confusingly, you then seem to contradict yourself in the following paragraphs:



Exactly. DXHR is aiming to bring in the "run 'n' gun" crowd, and following in the footsteps of Invisible War as it does so.

Oh, I didn't mean to be contradiciting if that's what you thought. I would prefer a game that delivered similar style in all aspects to the origional - but I know that, that is not what Eidos are trying to do. So I've tried to adjust my thinking to expect a game that will be like Worms ("simple" yet enjoyable) instead of Baldours Gate (fun but steep learning curve and requires skill to play).

So based on that, when I buy the game from the bargin bin, I'll be able to enjoy it for what is is, rather than what I think it should be :)

demon boy
15th Sep 2010, 18:57
A lot of the points you make I've already responded to in this post. (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1493527&postcount=91) To respond to your points in turn though, and expand on my original responses in places:

-The conversation system has the potential to be more complex than the original, but we haven't seen any evidence of that yet, we've just had PR spin - and what they've said could, in all honesty, be little more than a fancy way of describing what was present in the first game. ("If you fail at the conversations, you may not be able to do certain things!" - choosing the wrong conversation options blocked off certain paths in the first game as well, and does in many RPGs.) I will grant that this may turn out to be a step up from the original game, however, if it's done well.

-Hacking - Hacking is technically more complex here, I'll agree - but it's not an area that needs complexity, because it's something you're going to be repeating goodness knows how many times throughout the game, and it carries a very real danger of getting tedious after a while if it's too time-consuming (played Bioshock? Remember the hacking in that?)

-Stealth - for a start, they've taken out shadow stealth completely. That's one whole pillar of stealth gameplay gone. Secondly, just because you couldn't see round corners in the first game doesn't mean you were navigating blind - you could listen for guards' footsteps, peek out using the lean keys, or later on could get an aug that would let you see through walls. It just meant you could see what your character could see, rather than having what is essentially a built-in cheat to let you see enemies around corners, which takes most of the challenge out of stealth.



Deus Ex offered the choice (and, on that note, so did Invisible War) between regenerating health or not. Why couldn't DXHR do the same?



More info is needed here before finally comparison can be made, sure, but at a basic level - they've taken two complimentary systems, and mixed them together into just one. It may work fine - though it does spoil player fantasy a bit - but as we're talking complexity here rather than quality, it seems a step backwards in that regards.



Personally, I'm far more about gameplay than story etc - a great story is nice, but it's just the icing on the cake for me: a terrible game with a great story is still, at heart, a terrible game. So yes, you're right to point out that this isn't a priority for me, at least compared to gameplay.

However, I don't see how you can say that DXHR's story, environments, characters and dialogue seem to be a degree of magnitude better than that of the original given how little we've been given to work with - and to be honest, even that little seemed fairly clunky to me, putting the symbolism front and center (Icarus) rather than keeping it subtle, pretty standard dialogue ("Looky here, we got ourselves a boy scout!", "I'll send you to hell!", "You'll never find them" / "I'll never stop looking" etc etc) and so on. Sure, the environments are more detailed, but this is a game being released in 2011 getting compared to one released in 2000 - there'd be something severely wrong if that wasn't the case.

Again though, unless you have some secret info that the rest of us don't have, we're talking quality here rather than complexity. There will be no way to judge how complex the story is until the game comes out, which is why I didn't mention it before.



This point makes absolutely no sense. DXHR would, of course, have made more waves were it released back in 2000 - because its graphics would have been absolutely miles ahead of anything else at the time. Some of its gameplay mechanics - primarily the third person cover system - would, at the time, have been completely new, so that would've garnered a lot of comment (note: that's definitely not saying it's an improvement or that it's innovative now, just that it would've been unheard of in 2000.) And, of course, no-one would've been able to play it back then, because neither the consoles nor the PC tech existed.

If we take a more balanced comparison, and instead of taking DXHR back to 2000, we bring DX into 2011, complete with all the graphical upgrades and advancements in AI (and more decent voice actors willing to work on video games) that modern gaming entails and, for the sake of this argument, we assume the original Deus Ex never existed so these are essentially 2 entirely new similar but unrelated games: then chances are they'd both get roughly the same amount of raving, but from different crowds. The more hardcore crowd would praise Deus Ex, for its focus on immersion and deliberately slow pacing (at least at the start) whereas the more Halo or Call of Duty style crowd would praise DXHR for its emphasis on the cinematic and instant-gratification action gameplay. Which one of those two games would stand out more in the current gaming market? Well, I think you can probably answer that one yourself.

But again, you're bringing up a point that has little or nothing to do with complexity, which is what your original statement (and, indeed, this topic) was about. We can discuss quality all day, but complexity is a different matter entirely.

As I tried to point out earlier, there are several areas in which this game is far more complex than the original. Part of this is the natural progression of game design over the last decade. Your thoughts on what DX would be if it came out now are missing the point I was making. I'm not trying to factor out the effects of time or technological advancement. I am including those effects.

You see, nostalgia can really distort a lot of people's perception of things. There is nothing magical or unatainable about DX, it's only that way in the minds of some of the gamers who played it.

The thing that really disturbs me most is that I know that if this game were announced as a PC only title, the vast majority of the negativity in here would never have existed. People would be hailing the design decisions as smart and necessary even if they were exactly the same. It's only the fact that the game is being designed as a multi-platform game that is generating all of this nitpicking and negativity.

Now people might take issue with what I just said and they might throw some arguments at it. They might point out some things about the game that they disagree with and state that whether or not the game was a PC exclusive, they would feel the same way. I really and trully believe, however, that the pessimism comes from the multi-platform nature of the game as well as the oddly disgruntled disposition of most PC gamers these days. Oh well.

Romeo
15th Sep 2010, 19:10
I think people would complain, even if it was a PC-exclusive (Although I'm sure there'd be less of it). Certain decisions, like health regeneration, don't sit well with me. Whether I get auto-regen through a mouse or through a controller is irrelevent to me - it will still be wrong.

Ashpolt
15th Sep 2010, 19:24
Good point. You could argue about which is more complex cover systems or lean keys, but I will call it a tie

I don't find cover systems to be complex, they're just a different way of representing the same thing, though in this case also giving you vision of areas you can't see. As such, DX still gets the point here for me.


Again not about skill or how hard it is. It's about how complex the system is.

Agreed, but DX is still more complex, particularly when going up against 2 guards. Let's look at how that would play out in both games:

DX: Sneak up near the guards, using lean keys to peek out of cover to make sure they're not facing your way and using sound to check they're not moving. Close in, manually aim your melee attack at one of the guards, targetting their weak point - whether it's the head or the lower spin - and attack. If you missed, you're screwed. If you hit, you've now still got to take out the other guard.

DXHR: Sneak up near the guards, using the cover system to observe their movements while you stay hidden and safe. Close in, and when you get near enough, press a single button and they're both dead.

Are you really going to argue that DXHR is more complex here?


As I tried to point out earlier, there are several areas in which this game is far more complex than the original.

You tried but I already explained why I found most of your points lacking. Also, to be honest, you seem to be confused as to what exactly "complexity" is...


The thing that really disturbs me most is that I know that if this game were announced as a PC only title, the vast majority of the negativity in here would never have existed. People would be hailing the design decisions as smart and necessary even if they were exactly the same. It's only the fact that the game is being designed as a multi-platform game that is generating all of this nitpicking and negativity.

Don't kid yourself. When this was announced, Eidos Montreal said it was a PC exclusive - or at least, refused to confirm console releases - and this was the case up until about a year ago. People were still complaining every bit as much about the third person cover system and regenerating health back then though. This isn't just my opinion, this is cold fact - look back through some of the older posts on this forum and you'll see exactly that.


Oh, I didn't mean to be contradiciting if that's what you thought. I would prefer a game that delivered similar style in all aspects to the origional - but I know that, that is not what Eidos are trying to do. So I've tried to adjust my thinking to expect a game that will be like Worms ("simple" yet enjoyable) instead of Baldours Gate (fun but steep learning curve and requires skill to play).

So based on that, when I buy the game from the bargin bin, I'll be able to enjoy it for what is is, rather than what I think it should be :)

I just can't do that, especially when it's a game that's meant to be a successor to Deus Ex. Aiming low and achieving it is just as much of a sin, if not more so, than aiming high and falling short of the mark, in my eyes.

Fluffis
15th Sep 2010, 19:25
The thing that really disturbs me most is that I know that if this game were announced as a PC only title, the vast majority of the negativity in here would never have existed. People would be hailing the design decisions as smart and necessary even if they were exactly the same. It's only the fact that the game is being designed as a multi-platform game that is generating all of this nitpicking and negativity.

Now people might take issue with what I just said and they might throw some arguments at it. They might point out some things about the game that they disagree with and state that whether or not the game was a PC exclusive, they would feel the same way. I really and trully believe, however, that the pessimism comes from the multi-platform nature of the game as well as the oddly disgruntled disposition of most PC gamers these days. Oh well.

I'm not going to throw any arguments. I'm just going to flat out say: You're wrong.

Pretentious Old Man.
15th Sep 2010, 19:51
^^^And I'm going to agree.

Pinky_Powers
15th Sep 2010, 20:00
^^^and i'm going to agree.

+1.

Cronstintein
15th Sep 2010, 20:07
...especially when it's a game that's meant to be a successor to Deus Ex. Aiming low and achieving it is just as much of a sin, if not more so, than aiming high and falling short of the mark, in my eyes.

I definitely agree with this sentiment.

I see DX:HR aiming a notch or two above the norm vs DX1 trying to really break new ground. The only new things I see in DX:HR are the conversation 'battles'. Although I do like the setting and multi-path approach I can't really call that ground breaking since DX1 did it first. Although it's still much too rare!

One of those notches is for style :cool:, I dig the art we've seen so far. (EDIT: minus the toaster armor)

I think they really should have tried to come up with a new health system and not just used the industry standard regen-o-rama. Even if standard health boxes are outdated (which I sort of agree with) I think going a new direction would have been more in the DX spirit.

Cover system, while effective (maybe too effective), is a slightly lazy approach. First person cover, with maybe a little mirror you can pop out of your arm to look around corners, would have been better for immersion and originality. I can deal the 3rd person takedowns (somewhat infrequent) but cover is something you're going to be doing constantly so all that zooming is a bit disorientating :nut:

Over all I have faith it'll be a good game, but I'm expecting an 8 to 8.5 rather than a 10.

Ashpolt
15th Sep 2010, 20:23
I think they really should have tried to come up with a new health system and not just used the industry standard regen-o-rama. Even if standard health boxes are outdated (which I sort of agree with) I think going a new direction would have been more in the DX spirit.

I think something like L4D's system would've worked here: health kits, but they take a while to apply, so you can't spam them. And then regenerating health as an option.


Cover system, while effective (maybe too effective), is a slightly lazy approach. First person cover, with maybe a little mirror you can pop out of your arm to look around corners, would have been better for immersion and originality.

Ah man, that could've been a great idea! All of the immersion of staying in first person, but with an added visual cue for those who like their stealth a bit more simple. Why couldn't someone at EM have had that idea?


Over all I have faith it'll be a good game, but I'm expecting an 8 to 8.5 rather than a 10.

This I think you're probably right on. But as I've said many times on this forum, I think anything less than a 10 (or OK, a 9.5) for a Deus Ex game is an underachievement.

Blade_hunter
15th Sep 2010, 20:51
I think people would complain, even if it was a PC-exclusive (Although I'm sure there'd be less of it). Certain decisions, like health regeneration, don't sit well with me. Whether I get auto-regen through a mouse or through a controller is irrelevent to me - it will still be wrong.

People like me, I wasn't hopeful when a magazine thrown the rumor of the possible PC exclusivity about this game, and that was because I knew most gameplay elements already. (FAQ thread came first)
I expressed my feelings right away on this forum.

nomotog
15th Sep 2010, 21:07
I don't find cover systems to be complex, they're just a different way of representing the same thing, though in this case also giving you vision of areas you can't see. As such, DX still gets the point here for me.


Maybe it is easier, but it's not less complex. I also consider them about the same in complexity. I think i might have to change that as we learn what kind of combat augments there are too.



Agreed, but DX is still more complex, particularly when going up against 2 guards. Let's look at how that would play out in both games:

DX: Sneak up near the guards, using lean keys to peek out of cover to make sure they're not facing your way and using sound to check they're not moving. Close in, manually aim your melee attack at one of the guards, targetting their weak point - whether it's the head or the lower spin - and attack. If you missed, you're screwed. If you hit, you've now still got to take out the other guard.

DXHR: Sneak up near the guards, using the cover system to observe their movements while you stay hidden and safe. Close in, and when you get near enough, press a single button and they're both dead.

Are you really going to argue that DXHR is more complex here?


You described sneaking up to people to take them down. I all ready said I thought DX1 had a more complex sneaking style, but again that may change when we learn what augments affect sneaking.

deggen
15th Sep 2010, 21:20
Sorry but this 'social' combat really troubles me for a Deus Ex game. I don't doubt that it will work well and be an advance in conversation systems... but it just seems suited to a more social type game eg Vampire -Bloodlines.

Main reason is that at Deus Ex 'world' level, are you really going to be reading body language like some 'dude trying to pick up at a club' or something. If anything, it would just be a 'room of mirrors' type scenario where the 'opposition' reveals only what they want. eg: I ask Tong if he knows about a Hacker.... his eyes get shifty.... woo hoo i know he's lying. Honestly that's amateur hour. Like I said, at that level, these guys should all have top quality poker faces...

To me, it's already losing immersion.

Another smaller reason which is just personal maybe - is when i played JC, I would often just pick a response based on 'style' factor. Why? Because I'm JC Denton, i don't lower myself to engaging in 'social' combat... I'm 'Saviour of the World' and ill complete my mission anyway i have to. In fact, I don't even look at the person, that's how arrogant my character was haha. I could also argue that 'wit' in an oratory sense has been a major part of shaping Western Civilization for 2300 years or so.

Now they force me to scroll over options just to get an idea of what i'm going to say? Hmmm makes me question the entire scripting/story if they like to hide it.

"No pay, no play"
"I didn't ask for this"

Anyway I can accept most of these other 'console' style changes but
Please put one quality line of dialogue in the next trailer and i might buy this.

Ashpolt
15th Sep 2010, 23:25
You described sneaking up to people to take them down. I all ready said I thought DX1 had a more complex sneaking style, but again that may change when we learn what augments affect sneaking.

Fine, then just remove the sneaking parts from my examples. You still have "aiming, attacking one guard, aiming, attacking the other guard" (and that's assuming you get both attacks spot-on) vs "pressing a button and they're both dead."

beastrn
16th Sep 2010, 01:00
nomotag I just don't understand why you won't concede the point on cover combat. I'll make it as plain as possible for you;

Cover System: Press a button to become invisible/invincible while being able to have complete awareness of your surroundings. Press another button to "blind fire", for free, and/or stand and shoot and be slightly more vulnerable.

No Cover System: No awareness of your surroundings. "Cover" is any boxes or geometry that you can find. If you want to see what's coming you have to make yourself known/completely vulnerable (just like in real life~!). Lean keys to get a slight advantage. Shooting at an enemy leaves you as open to being shot as they are. Enemies won't stand around like duck hunt targets bobbing up and down watching as you slowly choose which person to kill.

HOW is cover as complex? Explain it in realistic gameplay terms :rolleyes:

And do you really think cover based combat, introduced by GEARS OF WAR, is widely used because of it's COMPLEXITY? Really?

pringlepower
16th Sep 2010, 01:59
nomotag I just don't understand why you won't concede the point on cover combat. I'll make it as plain as possible for you;

Cover System: Press a button to become invisible/invincible while being able to have complete awareness of your surroundings. Press another button to "blind fire", for free, and/or stand and shoot and be slightly more vulnerable.

No Cover System: No awareness of your surroundings. "Cover" is any boxes or geometry that you can find. If you want to see what's coming you have to make yourself known/completely vulnerable (just like in real life~!). Lean keys to get a slight advantage. Shooting at an enemy leaves you as open to being shot as they are. Enemies won't stand around like duck hunt targets bobbing up and down watching as you slowly choose which person to kill.

HOW is cover as complex? Explain it in realistic gameplay terms :rolleyes:

And do you really think cover based combat, introduced by GEARS OF WAR, is widely used because of it's COMPLEXITY? Really?

I wouldn't mind blind-fire in first-person though. It really is quite useful, and its realism isn't expressed well on PC versions of third-person shooters where you have pinpoint aim anyways.

FrankCSIS
16th Sep 2010, 02:02
Blind fire, in first person, would be a defensive move, as it would be in real life, because of your viewing angle. I highly encourage this possibility. In third person, blind fire is an attack move, because it is anything but blind. Hence why I maintain this whole third person cover is a combat system, not a stealth system.

beastrn
16th Sep 2010, 02:04
Blind fire in first person wouldn't be terrible idea, as long as they implement it smartly, ie; your gun/hand can get shot / your position is very well known / enemies won't stand and run around while you're spamming bullets and will instead hide (hence what blind fire is mainly used for, suppression, not free/lucky kills), etc.

Pinky_Powers
16th Sep 2010, 02:44
Blind fire, in first person, would be a defensive move, as it would be in real life, because of your viewing angle. I highly encourage this possibility. In third person, blind fire is an attack move, because it is anything but blind. Hence why I maintain this whole third person cover is a combat system, not a stealth system.

Firstly, Human Revolution has first-person firing, precise third-person firing, and true blind-firing. You can see the blind-firing in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Natn_1fhavI), when he's dealing with the Boxguard.

And second, the cover system is significantly more important for stealth than it is for combat. It floors me that you can't understand why that is.

FrankCSIS
16th Sep 2010, 02:59
Oh Pinky, you spend half your day on the floor as it is.

I see the weapon is held to the side and not aimed while in "blind-fire", but for cute bunny's sake, don't tell me you don't see how it can't be true blind firing when you know your exact (emphasis here) enemy position at all times, thanks to the viewing angle. It's one thing to guess in which general location they are thanks to sound and other human perception, but now you know just the right moment to make your blind firing count.

The cover is a tactical system primaliry developped for attack moves, including takedowns, which also offers the possibility of stealth. Yes, you can use it strictly to run from boxes to boxes, or counter to doorsteps, but surely you can see how optimised it is for combat situations. I'm not passing a judgement here, by the way, but telling it as we've seen so far. It doesn't help, of course, that we've seen two distinctively different types of gameplay in the same footage, namely one that is completely non-violent while the other is all about infiltration and combat. I may not get the same impression about the cover once I play a portion which offers both walk and talk as well as the possibility of action and sneaking/killing.

pringlepower
16th Sep 2010, 03:03
Oh Pinky, you spend half your day on the floor as it is.

I see the weapon is held to the side and not aimed while in "blind-fire", but for cute bunny's sake, don't tell me you don't see how it can't be true blind firing when you know your exact (emphasis here) enemy position at all times, thanks to the viewing angle. It's one thing to guess in which general location they are thanks to sound and other human perception, but now you know just the right moment to make your blind firing count.

The cover is a tactical system primaliry developped for attack moves, including takedowns, which also offers the possibility of stealth. Yes, you can use it strictly to run from boxes to boxes, or counter to doorsteps, but surely you can see how optimised it is for combat situations. I'm not passing a judgement here, by the way, but telling it as we've seen so far. It doesn't help, of course, that we've seen two distinctively different types of gameplay in the same footage, namely one that is completely non-violent while the other is all about infiltration and combat. I may not get the same impression about the cover once I play a portion which offers both walk and talk as well as the possibility of action and sneaking/killing.

Well it can be difficult to make blind-firing work perfectly in FP too, since in FP you're naturally handicapped by impaired senses of hearing, spatial awareness etc., that TP really overcompensates for. However it'd be nice for the "run into cover, spray bullets in their general direction" sorta thing.

Hopefully the police station gameplay, when released, will clear things up about stealth.

luminar
16th Sep 2010, 03:07
Ok maybe I'm a highly trained agent and I don't know it but I can easily peak out around a corner (and see everything I need to.) without exposing hardly any of myself.

pringlepower
16th Sep 2010, 03:09
Ok maybe I'm a highly trained agent and I don't know it but I can easily peak out around a corner (and see everything I need to.) without exposing hardly any of myself.

But can you do it while wearing an Abe Lincoln style top hat?

luminar
16th Sep 2010, 03:11
But can you do it while wearing an Abe Lincoln style top hat?

Ah the timeless question! Hmmm actually I think so. Maybe alittle more exposed but not much.

Pinky_Powers
16th Sep 2010, 03:16
The cover is a tactical system primaliry developped for attack moves, including takedowns, which also offers the possibility of stealth. Yes, you can use it strictly to run from boxes to boxes, or counter to doorsteps, but surely you can see how optimised it is for combat situations. I'm not passing a judgement here, by the way, but telling it as we've seen so far. It doesn't help, of course, that we've seen two distinctively different types of gameplay in the same footage, namely one that is completely non-violent while the other is all about infiltration and combat. I may not get the same impression about the cover once I play a portion which offers both walk and talk as well as the possibility of action and sneaking/killing.

No, I see how cover protects you from bullets, but I see "primarily" how powerful it is for stealth.

Without a cover system, you rely on every object being just high enough for your weak-ass crouch to function behind. A cover-system can adjust your stance based on the dimensions of the object. It can fold you in behind it as you would in real life, instead of just hunching behind and pretending no one can see you. It allows you to flatten against a wall, not just stand around the corner and get spotted easily.

ArcR
16th Sep 2010, 03:19
wow... good catch Pinky. I was wonder why all the talk of blind fire. Frank put it best... 3rd person changes the nature of blind fire. If the give you an aim point during a 3rd person blind fire they'll be taking out so risk. This is really really cruddy. A lot of the fun in FPS fights is staying on top of the situation and maintaining awareness of what is going on so that you can figure out how to beat the enemy.

Whatever... I'll just play it my way as much as I can. The boxguard wont get dropped on me.

FrankCSIS
16th Sep 2010, 03:21
Well it can be difficult to make blind-firing work perfectly in FP too

FP as we know it is far from perfect. In fact third person, strictly taking into account what it aims to do, is really more advanced now that we have decent wall-hugging systems. The spatial position next to walls and doorsteps used to be in TP, but it has since become near flawless. I can't possibly say otherwise. I'm just saying blind fire, in third person, is a combat move. I don't see why anyone would hang me over this statement, considering how simply true it is :p

I've made propositions for first person wall-hugging which would be both realistic and more interesting than the usual boring crouch-and-face-a-wall approach we've been served with first person since, well, forever. I don't know how completely feasible it is just yet, but I don't see any physical limitations to it. In this scenario I've proposed some weeks/months ago, blind fire would be much more of a defensive move, and more in line with the type of tactical action sequences I'd like to see in games. It would also solve the issue of the ridiculous crouching around from boxes to boxes in first person issue, as it would be possible to adapt to the environment.

Edit:


No, I see how cover protects you from bullets, but I see "primarily" how powerful it is for stealth.

I guess we both see what we want to see in it. But I have a problem with stealth, in our days and age, being primarily about rolling from boxes to boxes. Sneaking up on people for the sake of it is a hobby of mine. Not during inflitration or ****, but in work or street environments. You'll never see me crouhing around behind some damn boxes, or rolling from cover to cover. Slow movements, corners, areas with little colors and darker shades, and many moment spent still, combined with timing, makes for effective stealth. When I see this twirling, I thing of inflitration and combat, not slow-paced, calculated stealth. Not that DX was THAT much better in this regard, by the way. I just don't find the cover system an impovement in the stealth department.

beastrn
16th Sep 2010, 03:26
Blind fire isn't MEANT to work


Ok maybe I'm a highly trained agent and I don't know it but I can easily peak out around a corner (and see everything I need to.) without exposing hardly any of myself.

Someone has never played airsoft

Pinky_Powers
16th Sep 2010, 03:29
From the footage I've seen, combat looks like it will function perfectly without ever needing to actually use the "cover system". Just crouch, pop and shoot like Dues Ex. But for proper stealth, in buildings with decent lighting, the cover system is all-important.

FrankCSIS
16th Sep 2010, 03:32
Unless every environment is filled with hundreds of boxes, I'm not sure how crouch and pop will keep you alive, especially considering you need to lay low and rest when you want some health back.

It works primarily the way Mass Effect, Gears of War or Mafia 2 has it going. Environments heavily designed around ducking, rolling and firing. The great deal they've pulled is to also use it the way Splinter Cell functions, bringing stealth along the way. It's a cool move, really. So we can call it 50-50. The true ratio will heavily depend on the level designs then, the positionning of enemies and obstacles, and how action-oriented the levels are, despite their sacred four pillars of gaming.

Philljc
16th Sep 2010, 03:32
Can I get a ban from this god awful place? The misinformation and stupid posts make me want to hurt things.

To further enforce my desire, ban me you fat ******* retards.

pringlepower
16th Sep 2010, 03:35
Can I get a ban from this god awful place? The misinformation and stupid posts make me want to hurt things.

To further enforce my desire, ban me you fat ******* retards.

You could just not be a idiotic baby and stop coming to the forum. If you need to be forcibly restrained from a place that you hate, that's called addiction. Go to rehab.

FrankCSIS
16th Sep 2010, 03:38
I think we broke his heart, while discussing the impact of game design on an experience.

NKD
16th Sep 2010, 03:43
Can I get a ban from this god awful place? The misinformation and stupid posts make me want to hurt things.

When I don't want to look at a site, but morbid curiosity keeps me coming back, I just resolve it to 127.0.0.1 (localhost) in my Windows HOSTS file. Sure, you could just edit it out again and load the site, but I've found that it actually deters me from visiting sites that are bad for my health because I find I'm too lazy to go edit that file again.

Pinky_Powers
16th Sep 2010, 03:45
Unless every environment is filled with hundreds of boxes, I'm not sure how crouch and pop will keep you alive, especially considering you need to lay low and rest when you want some health back.

It works primarily the way Mass Effect, Gears of War or Mafia 2 has it going. Environments heavily designed around ducking, rolling and firing. The great deal they've pulled is to also use it the way Splinter Cell functions, bringing stealth along the way. It's a cool move, really. So we can call it 50-50. The true ratio will heavily depend on the level designs then, the positionning of enemies and obstacles, and how action-oriented the levels are, despite their sacred four pillars of gaming.

You're also forgetting Augs. Augs work into those four pillars. If you set out to be a stealthy player, you will be installing stealthy augs. Things like sound-dampening and cloaking shall aid you when level design brings unexpected challenges.

beastrn
16th Sep 2010, 03:45
Oh god I forgot about the augs -_-

pringlepower
16th Sep 2010, 03:48
You're also forgetting Augs. Augs work into those four pillars. If you set out to be a stealthy player, you will be installing stealthy augs. Things like sound-dampening and cloaking shall aid you when level design brings unexpected challenges.

Don't forget x-ray, or "t-ray" vision. You can feasibly play the game, designed for TP looking all around you by playing FP with the see-through aug on a lot. Might need to mod the energy cost lower a bit, but eh.

Edit: Wait doesn't the first energy pip regen? So you can use x-ray in short bursts to get the same effect.

FrankCSIS
16th Sep 2010, 03:56
Sound-dampening I like. Controlling your footing and the noise you make is one of the main keys of undetected movement, when not in still position, and that's something difficult to control in games. They've pulled those slow walk moves since Thief I guess, but in reality it's possible to be very silent while climbing a staircase rapidly or quickwalking. Main idea is to absorb most of the weight through the toes, then roll on the palm of your feet and use the heel to propel the next movement. I can't see this being done anytime soon in games, though. So either it is through boosting your stealth skill or through the use of sound dampening, both solutions are somewhat equal in their design.

Cloaking makes me shiver, sorry to say. Crouching behind boxes coupled with a cloak is just forced. I guess the technology is potentially there, but cloaking, the way it's always been explained to me, can only truly work when still. It'd be nice for sneaking if it were combined with lighting, to just sit in a corner and gather some vocal intel. I suspect I'll be using it, in reality, for takedowns, like most people I can only assume.

pringlepower
16th Sep 2010, 04:03
Sound-dampening I like. Controlling your footing and the noise you make is one of the main keys of undetected movement, when not in still position, and that's something difficult to control in games. They've pulled those slow walk moves since Thief I guess, but in reality it's possible to be very silent while climbing a staircase rapidly or quickwalking. Main idea is to absorb most of the weight through the toes, then roll on the palm of your feet and use the heel to propel the next movement. I can't see this being done anytime soon in games, though. So either it is through boosting your stealth skill or through the use of sound dampening, both solutions are somewhat equal in their design.

Cloaking makes me shiver, sorry to say. Crouching behind boxes coupled with a cloak is just forced. I guess the technology is potentially there, but cloaking, the way it's always been explained to me, can only truly work when still. It'd be nice for sneaking if it were combined with lighting, to just sit in a corner and gather some vocal intel. I suspect I'll be using it, in reality, for takedowns, like most people I can only assume.

Splinter Cell had the most awesome system for sound-dampening: mouse wheel to adjust walk speed.

Pinky_Powers
16th Sep 2010, 04:04
Then there's the Augmentation upgrade tree, which holds oh! so much potential. I can't say how curious I am about all the stealth-related Augs there are, and what all they might do. :naughty:


Splinter Cell had the most awesome system for sound-dampening: mouse wheel to adjust walk speed.

It was quick, fluid and perfect!

...god I love those games.

FrankCSIS
16th Sep 2010, 04:09
Splinter Cell had the most awesome system for sound-dampening: mouse wheel to adjust walk speed.

Points to thread title

We've just come full circle with the console limitations. I can go to sleep with a happy ending, without the need to hump someone...or something

>.>


<.<

pringlepower
16th Sep 2010, 04:13
Points to thread title

We've just come full circle with the console limitations. I can go to sleep with a happy ending, without the need to hump someone...or something

>.>


<.<

Eh, most of these topics go off topic anyways.

Kodaemon
16th Sep 2010, 04:16
Points to thread title

We've just come full circle with the console limitations.

Didn't the SC games make use of the analog stick for for controlling speed on consoles? :confused:

FrankCSIS
16th Sep 2010, 04:19
I don't recall, but can analog give you more than two positionnings? This very slow walk and normal slow walk is very tedious for stealth, especially when gaging the analog stick, and most games couple it with a silent run upgrade at one point or another.

TheUnbeholden
16th Sep 2010, 05:23
I still find it intriguing that people elect to put themselves into a camp of console or computer, with the computer gamers assuming they're far and away more intelligent. Frankly I play both, for different genres, but I never look down on those who only play on console. To do so is to be an ignorent prick.

I agree.

I play both, and always have, because both have good games. Sure playing on a controller is a little different, but the controller is a simplified controlling scheme, less buttons. But interestingly enough, most games use all of those buttons and quit well. It still provides entertainment regardless of platform and the vibration pack is a nice addition. Motion sensitive thumbstick provides a small advantage with certain types of games. Each game is tailored to its platform, and if it isn't, then its most likely is a bad game.

The Deus Ex Human Evolution developers have said quite specifically that the game will not be dumbed down for console, and that he said that everyone wants to feel smart regardless of platform, implying that the game will be very smart to begin with... not sure if there's any other way to interpret that.



Though I have a fear that if this sells well the developers will assume that the regenerating health and third person takedowns/cover will be missed if they remove them in sequels (/DX Remakes)



Oh god don't even suggest that.

If Eidos assumes anything, it will be that the Deus Ex brand name will be the reason why it sells good.. or at least lets hope so.

I like regenerating health and cover system as well as lots of cut scenes in Gears of War, because its different.. and it suits the game. The action is constant and the pacing is very well implemented, its not as immersive but it doesn't really need to be. Health regeneration fits well with Call of Duty Modern Warfare because the game is always in motion. Deus Ex is a more realistic game with a richer experience, more immersive and switching the 3rd person deviates from that in my opinion. Regenerating health isn't realistic and with such a story driven immersive game, I think it will deviate from the affect it could create.

Health regeneration was in the first 2 games but as optional augmentation, which I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be this way in the new game...

So a answer to everyone here "lets wait and see, I think we have already voiced our opinions enough."

nomotog
16th Sep 2010, 06:44
nomotag I just don't understand why you won't concede the point on cover combat. I'll make it as plain as possible for you;

Cover System: Press a button to become invisible/invincible while being able to have complete awareness of your surroundings. Press another button to "blind fire", for free, and/or stand and shoot and be slightly more vulnerable.

No Cover System: No awareness of your surroundings. "Cover" is any boxes or geometry that you can find. If you want to see what's coming you have to make yourself known/completely vulnerable (just like in real life~!). Lean keys to get a slight advantage. Shooting at an enemy leaves you as open to being shot as they are. Enemies won't stand around like duck hunt targets bobbing up and down watching as you slowly choose which person to kill.

HOW is cover as complex? Explain it in realistic gameplay terms :rolleyes:

And do you really think cover based combat, introduced by GEARS OF WAR, is widely used because of it's COMPLEXITY? Really?

DX:HR has both cover and FP. That more complex then just having FP. Like i have said I am only talking about pure complexity.

Sense you mentioned gears of war, Try to imagine what that game would be like with out sticky cover. It would be a lot more simplistic with controls and with game play.

Philljc
16th Sep 2010, 09:40
Amazing. Still not banned.

BRB in 24hrs with some goatse if my demands are still not met.

Ashpolt
16th Sep 2010, 09:51
And second, the cover system is significantly more important for stealth than it is for combat. It floors me that you can't understand why that is.

I'd put it as equally important for both. In stealth, it stops you being seen. In combat, it stops you being shot. If games include (and are balanced around) this feature, it becomes a vital part of any situations where enemies are involved.

Note that when I say it's important, I mean "implementing the system makes it important," not that such a system is important for action / stealth gameplay to work in any sense. This should probably be obvious, but I'd rather spell it out.

Brockxz
16th Sep 2010, 10:02
I don't recall, but can analog give you more than two positionnings? This very slow walk and normal slow walk is very tedious for stealth, especially when gaging the analog stick, and most games couple it with a silent run upgrade at one point or another.

with analog stick you can walk as slow/fast as you can. IMO that's the only advantage controller have over m+k. Same thing is in driving games. There is really benefit having controller with analog sticks

NKD
16th Sep 2010, 10:16
with analog stick you can walk as slow/fast as you can. IMO that's the only advantage controller have over m+k. Same thing is in driving games. There is really benefit having controller with analog sticks

Agreed. That's the one advantage they've got. Analog sticks are great for driving games and fighting games. Pressure sensitive buttons are nice too. I use a gamepad on my PC for several genres and for the crappier console ports where the mouse support is too sluggish.

avenging_teabag
16th Sep 2010, 11:11
There is a point to make doors that can be open differently because even the skills in Deus Ex were made also for things that are uncommon for both tools.
So the replayability is here
No. If you can achieve the same objective by different means (i.e. swimming, aqualung, rebreathers) which could be swapped, replaced by something else or dropped altogether - that is replayability. If you take one objective and artificially divide it in two, i.e. two different type of doors which could only be opened by two different types of keys and you cannot drop them in favor of something else and they always stay the same, it's called redudndancy. If you'd dropped lockpicks from DE entirely, the game would lose absolutely nothing.


No, but it adds depth.That's subjective, for me, it added frustration. Anyway, we were talking about replayability, not depth or realism.

That's really a very minor point just to illustrate that more complex =/= always better. Sorry for dredging it up.

Hammich
16th Sep 2010, 11:15
FP as we know it is far from perfect. In fact third person, strictly taking into account what it aims to do, is really more advanced now that we have decent wall-hugging systems. The spatial position next to walls and doorsteps used to be in TP, but it has since become near flawless. I can't possibly say otherwise. I'm just saying blind fire, in third person, is a combat move. I don't see why anyone would hang me over this statement, considering how simply true it is :p

I've made propositions for first person wall-hugging which would be both realistic and more interesting than the usual boring crouch-and-face-a-wall approach we've been served with first person since, well, forever. I don't know how completely feasible it is just yet, but I don't see any physical limitations to it. In this scenario I've proposed some weeks/months ago, blind fire would be much more of a defensive move, and more in line with the type of tactical action sequences I'd like to see in games. It would also solve the issue of the ridiculous crouching around from boxes to boxes in first person issue, as it would be possible to adapt to the environment.




First-person wall-hugging has been well implemented in Killzone 2 and Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood and Killzone 2 even had FP blind firing. While the game was unexciting for me (or I was just bitter about having to use a controller) the shooting mechanics were quite nifty.
Not to mention games like Mirrors Edge with simulated full body awareness.

So it's possible and it works. It just makes me wish they'd implement it in Deus Ex.
It doesn't simplify or complicate anything, it just changes how the player interfaces with the environment and doesn't dilute the immersion with TP pulling you out of your body.

I remember reading Jonathan Jacques-Belletête trying to sell the benefit of "being able to see yourself!" with the TP system >.>
Which you do in conversations and cutscenes anyway.
There's always Deys Ex 4... I guess :(

Ashpolt
16th Sep 2010, 11:39
There's always Deys Ex 4... I guess :(

I wish I could even hope for that. The problem is, if this game sells well (which, appealing to the lowest common denominator and marketed aggressively, I'm sure it will regardless of quality) Eidos Montreal will go "every decision we made was right! No need to change anything for the sequel!" If it sells badly, they'll say "The Deus Ex franchise obviously can't sell, so no sequel." Now that EM have decided to shift DX down this route, it'll take nothing short of a miracle to turn it back.

beastrn
16th Sep 2010, 12:16
Keep in mind we said that about Invisible War - HR is the sequel we've been waiting for :/

Ashpolt
16th Sep 2010, 12:35
Keep in mind we said that about Invisible War - HR is the sequel we've been waiting for :/

I dunno about you, but it's not the sequel I've been waiting for. The sequel I've been waiting for actually learned from the mistakes of Invisible War.

And doesn't involve the protagonist travelling on a rocket.

Philljc
16th Sep 2010, 13:01
If it sells badly, they'll say "The Deus Ex franchise obviously can't sell, so no sequel." Now that EM have decided to shift DX down this route, it'll take nothing short of a miracle to turn it back.

^^^ You forgot piracy. PC piracy don't forget, console games don't get pirated.

Goatse still pending.

The Monochrome Man
16th Sep 2010, 13:03
I see the weapon is held to the side and not aimed while in "blind-fire", but for cute bunny's sake, don't tell me you don't see how it can't be true blind firing when you know your exact (emphasis here) enemy position at all times, thanks to the viewing angle. It's one thing to guess in which general location they are thanks to sound and other human perception, but now you know just the right moment to make your blind firing count.

Some modern sidearms are actually designed for this - I've seen periscopes used to allow people to track targets over cover. The more modern equivalent would be a camera slung under the muzzle with a side mounted pivoting LCD screen - if you're transmitting back to a base station (think SWAT portrayals in film) there's no reason not to give the guys on the ground a way to use that camera as well.
I can't imagine it's easy to handle the recoil doing something like this, but it does work around the 'where are they?' problem. Would be a pain in the neck to portray from first person though.

We know that Jenson has some kind of eye augmentation - would it not be plausible for him to get a direct feed from any cameras or scopes on his weapons for the same effect? The connection could be made using either a contact patch on the trigger/grip or using a bluetooth style wireless connection (although it'd better be encrypted!).

Philljc
16th Sep 2010, 13:15
Some modern sidearms are actually designed for this - I've seen periscopes used to allow people to track targets over cover. The more modern equivalent would be a camera slung under the muzzle with a side mounted pivoting LCD screen - if you're transmitting back to a base station (think SWAT portrayals in film) there's no reason not to give the guys on the ground a way to use that camera as well.
I can't imagine it's easy to handle the recoil doing something like this, but it does work around the 'where are they?' problem. Would be a pain in the neck to portray from first person though.

We know that Jenson has some kind of eye augmentation - would it not be plausible for him to get a direct feed from any cameras or scopes on his weapons for the same effect? The connection could be made using either a contact patch on the trigger/grip or using a bluetooth style wireless connection (although it'd better be encrypted!).
They did it because it's easy for dimwits, not because they took any of that into account.

Sabretooth1
16th Sep 2010, 13:52
What's your problem?

Sheesh, MI, you couldn't be seeing a butthurt-noob-turned-troll the first time. :rasp: He's mad that mods are editing his posts and he doesn't want to make amends so he pretends more butthurt and victimizes himself.

I have a PhD in Troll Psychology, trust me.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Sep 2010, 13:55
I have a PhD in Troll Psychology, trust me.

Hehe, yeah, I trust you. :D
I didn't realise he had a post edited by a mod, thought he was replying to another member, so I was slow catching up there. :o
I'll delete it anyway.

Philljc
16th Sep 2010, 14:01
Oh well, looks like we'll be doing it the hard way.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Sep 2010, 14:04
^
Goodbye.

Sabretooth1
16th Sep 2010, 14:31
Is the "Banned" status on this forum really "Abandonware"? That's awesome!

/is tempted to get banned
//not really
///no seriously don't ban me

Ashpolt
16th Sep 2010, 15:00
Is the "Banned" status on this forum really "Abandonware"? That's awesome!

Fun fact: It used to be "Duke Nukem Forever", but they've had to change that recently.

Fun fact #2: The above is a lie.

Fun fact #3: Anyone making a Portal reference in response to Fun fact #2 will be slapped.

Pretentious Old Man.
16th Sep 2010, 15:10
Fun fact: It used to be "Duke Nukem Forever", but they've had to change that recently.

Fun fact #2: The above is a lie.

Fun fact #3: Anyone making a Portal reference in response to Fun fact #2 will be slapped.


Fun fact #4: The device is now more valuable than the organs and combined incomes of everyone in [subject hometown here].

Laokin
16th Sep 2010, 15:55
Once they release Shadow of the Colossus for PC, i'll agree with you.

There is always an exception to the rule. I.E. Street Fighter.

MOST console games not ALL are over simplified. They have proven time in, time out, that complexity sells on consoles.... Fallout III, Morrowind... etc.


Yet time in, time out, they release another "push x now!" game, where if you even fail to push x now, you just get to replay the same section that says "push X now!!!!!"

I mean seriously.... how is there even a counter argument. Another great example, Duke Nukem. While I think the design decision is okay based on different reasoning, they put in a 2 weapon limit because they couldn't figure out a nice weapon selection system that would fit on a controller.

Never had a problem with Radial menu's before? Dumbed down. Period.

This is the hand holding and complexity stripping we are talking about. There have been numerous games with 9 weapons holdable at the same time on consoles, not a single one ever got bad marks in a review because of weapon selection.

Dumbed Down. If you wish to be ignorant, that's cool.... but don't try to pretend the trend doesn't exist. The best way I heard it put is, year 1 they make 100% profit, year 2 they make 90% profit, they see year 2 as a loss.... so they cut costs to try to maximize profit, which hurts the industry as a whole in the long run, to line their pockets heavily in the short run. Then they analyze which games sold more than theirs, copy it's unique features and produce 5 more games with them competing against themselves, they do foolish things like hold the release of the pc version, sabotaging it's own sales because people would rather play what's "new" rather than yesterdays news... then they say OH LOOK PIRACY KILLED OUR SALES. The mediocre sales on consoles is dumb founding to them, Gears sold like crazy, why didn't CallofHalflivedZombieShooterNOWWITHMOARCHAINSAW 7 sell as good? It's going to kill the industry, eventually people are going to get bored and realize that Black Ops, is CoD 4, 5, and 6... they are all the same game. Then what? They find a scape goat, blame piracy, jail people for amazing amounts of time, gaming population recedes, the industry crashes, and they point the finger at you...... (Really, I mean, it's not impossible -- it can happen.)

The truth is, there IS a problem. This is not an opinion. This is not elitist either, I own all consoles + pc. I prefer to play my games on console these days, because the pc versions are just so terrible, this however, doesn't mean I play MW2 on my 360, I play games like Street Fighter instead.

I simply won't buy anymore garbage.... period, I'm sick of it.

nomotog
16th Sep 2010, 16:01
I wish I could even hope for that. The problem is, if this game sells well (which, appealing to the lowest common denominator and marketed aggressively, I'm sure it will regardless of quality) Eidos Montreal will go "every decision we made was right! No need to change anything for the sequel!" If it sells badly, they'll say "The Deus Ex franchise obviously can't sell, so no sequel." Now that EM have decided to shift DX down this route, it'll take nothing short of a miracle to turn it back.

I doubt they will make a DX4.

Laokin
16th Sep 2010, 16:14
I doubt they will make a DX4.

I bet there will be at least two more, this one will sell well, the next one will be this one with a new story, and sell worse, the one after that will be the real "Reboot" and depending on which route they take will choose DX destiny.

Most likely, it will fail hard, and then they will blame the franchise, rather their incompetency.

Tribes was killed by Vivendi. Tribes: Veng wasn't advertised well, was a great game, but full of completely arbitrary changes to the formula, put on bargain bin prices 3 weeks after launch to generate sales, rather then market it. When it sold bad they blamed it on the Tribes IP.

It was one of the biggest player bases and practically the daddy of large player count multiplayer, there was also thousands of people in complete outburst on their forums saying they will boycott the game because of the changes they made. They did. The industry just put up it's middle finger and killed the franchise.

Garage Games bought the I.P. back and will eventually open www.playtribes.com, but who knows if we will ever get a new tribes game. (playtibes is the original tribes from 1998, played in a browser like quakelive.)

Ashpolt
16th Sep 2010, 16:17
I doubt they will make a DX4.

I don't, because I have no doubt that DXHR will be marketed well enough to sell by the bucketload regardless of quality. It's got guns, explosions and "cool" third person takedowns, a half arsed marketing campaign could make this sell well easily - and Square / EM paid to have a huge DX:HR banner hanging outside of E3, to they're obviously (eventually) planning to put quite a lot of budget behind this marketing campaign.

No, my worry is far more that DX:HR will turn out exactly how I expect it to, and will sell a ridiculous number of copies to people who've never played the first game and who just like this one because they can blast their way through it (but hate the talking stuff - ****'s boring, yo) and the sequels will get progressively worse as they tailor more and more to that crowd over time. Actually, maybe "worse" is an unfair term - I'm sure they'll be fun shooters, but that's all they'll be -shooters. With mild RPG elements tacked on as an afterthought at best. They'll be unrecognisable from the "immersive simulation" that Deus Ex was designed as.

AlexOfSpades
16th Sep 2010, 16:23
^
Goodbye.

Now that was stylish.

bukkit
16th Sep 2010, 17:11
^^^ You forgot piracy. PC piracy don't forget, console games don't get pirated.

LOOOLololoL. console games dont get pirated you say. wake up... console game can be pirated even easily than the pc ones - yes PS3 games also recently.

Happy
16th Sep 2010, 17:15
I dunno about you, but it's not the sequel I've been waiting for. The sequel I've been waiting for actually learned from the mistakes of Invisible War.

And doesn't involve the protagonist travelling on a rocket.

Rocket? Where did you see this?

Kodaemon
16th Sep 2010, 17:16
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=113583

Happy
16th Sep 2010, 17:22
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=113583

That is sooooo baaaaaad. Reminds me of Ponyo - terrible!

nomotog
16th Sep 2010, 18:08
I don't, because I have no doubt that DXHR will be marketed well enough to sell by the bucketload regardless of quality. It's got guns, explosions and "cool" third person takedowns, a half arsed marketing campaign could make this sell well easily - and Square / EM paid to have a huge DX:HR banner hanging outside of E3, to they're obviously (eventually) planning to put quite a lot of budget behind this marketing campaign.

No, my worry is far more that DX:HR will turn out exactly how I expect it to, and will sell a ridiculous number of copies to people who've never played the first game and who just like this one because they can blast their way through it (but hate the talking stuff - ****'s boring, yo) and the sequels will get progressively worse as they tailor more and more to that crowd over time. Actually, maybe "worse" is an unfair term - I'm sure they'll be fun shooters, but that's all they'll be -shooters. With mild RPG elements tacked on as an afterthought at best. They'll be unrecognisable from the "immersive simulation" that Deus Ex was designed as.

The way I see it. Even if the game is perfect and loved by literally everyone, they are out of story space.

DX:HR --> DX1 ---> DX:IW

You could try and put a game after IW, but people wouldn't go for that. You could try putting one before DX:HR, but you wouldn't be able to use arguments. In-less they toss out the story. (I think that is a good idea, but no one else agrees with me on that.) You don't have much space where you can place a game.

NKD
16th Sep 2010, 18:29
The way I see it. Even if the game is perfect and loved by literally everyone, they are out of story space.

DX:HR --> DX1 ---> DX:IW

You could try and put a game after IW, but people wouldn't go for that. You could try putting one before DX:HR, but you wouldn't be able to use arguments. In-less they toss out the story. (I think that is a good idea, but no one else agrees with me on that.) You don't have much space where you can place a game.

Well, you could flush DX:IW down the toilet and do a proper sequel. It was a decent game on its own, but as a Deus Ex game it just wasn't very good. Especially in the story department. So dry and uninteresting. But I agree that it's unlikely we'll see another sequel. This is the last game in the Deus Ex saga regardless of how it turns out.

Irate_Iguana
16th Sep 2010, 18:36
Especially in the story department. So dry and uninteresting.

Agreed. Regardless of the gameplay decision of IW, the story fell flat on a lot of points. Especially when it came to the various characters. The best thing to do would be to just junk it and reboot the timeline. Take the story from HR and DX and try to extrapolate. Don't try to muscle in all four possible DX endings.

NKD
16th Sep 2010, 18:57
Agreed. Regardless of the gameplay decision of IW, the story fell flat on a lot of points. Especially when it came to the various characters. The best thing to do would be to just junk it and reboot the timeline. Take the story from HR and DX and try to extrapolate. Don't try to muscle in all four possible DX endings.

Yeah that was my biggest complaint about IW. Even more than their decision to go crossplatform before the consoles were ready. In some ways they still aren't. But the original Xbox was particularly ill suited to the task.

Once I heard they weren't picking one ending and running with it, I knew immediately the story was going to be schizophrenic and disappointing. I was actually surprised at the decision. I would have thought the Illuminati ending was the ideal and obvious choice to run with for a sequel.

DX:IW was just too far removed from the original story-wise. It felt strange somehow. Almost uncomfortable as if I was wearing shoes that were the wrong size, or someone elses jacket. Strange analogy I know, but that's the best way I can describe it.

Irate_Iguana
16th Sep 2010, 19:10
I would have thought the Illuminati ending was the ideal and obvious choice to run with for a sequel.

In a sense it is the best because nothing changes. The conspiracy isn't really defeated it just changes hands. Back to the way it more or less was for quite a while. Society would get a chance to rebuild and the stage could be set for any other conspiracy.

Ashpolt
16th Sep 2010, 19:22
The way I see it. Even if the game is perfect and loved by literally everyone, they are out of story space.

DX:HR --> DX1 ---> DX:IW

You could try and put a game after IW, but people wouldn't go for that. You could try putting one before DX:HR, but you wouldn't be able to use arguments. In-less they toss out the story. (I think that is a good idea, but no one else agrees with me on that.) You don't have much space where you can place a game.

I understand where you're coming from, and I had the same thought myself, but no doubt Eidos will have thought of this as well, and so I 99% guarantee you that DX:HR will leave enough open at the end of the game to have a sequel set almost immediately afterwards. At best, I expect it'll be "You've tied up this conspiracy Adam, but something even darker is lurking around the corner!" At worst...well, have you seen the ending to Halo 2? Yeah. That.

And of course, they can always take the option of side stories - play as secondary characters from DX:HR either during the same timeline or shortly before / afterwards. They could even do a side story to Deus Ex 1, perhaps playing as Paul as he starts at UNATCO and leading through to him joining the NSF. It could even end with him standing on the docks of Liberty Island...of course, I hope they don't do this, just saying they could.

Or, of course, they could remake Deus Ex 1, though if there's any good in this world, they won't. I'm normally quite a gentle person IRL, but if I see JC Denton using third person cover and takedowns, I will instantly buy a plane ticket to Montreal and a chainsaw.

So are there any real decent stories left to be told in the DX universe after HR, without overriding established continuity? Probably not. But if there's money in it, EM will find a way. Like I say, DX:HR being left at least slightly open-ended is almost a certainty.

nomotog
16th Sep 2010, 19:30
Or, of course, they could remake Deus Ex 1, though if there's any good in this world, they won't. I'm normally quite a gentle person IRL, but if I see JC Denton using third person cover and takedowns, I will instantly buy a plane ticket to Montreal and a chainsaw.


And that is why they wont remake DX1. ;)

hem dazon 90
16th Sep 2010, 20:21
After HR they should make a marid audran game

The Monochrome Man
16th Sep 2010, 21:21
LOOOLololoL. console games dont get pirated you say. wake up... console game can be pirated even easily than the pc ones - yes PS3 games also recently.

Perhaps it's better to say that they don't get pirated as much. Getting a pirated game to work on the Xbox isn't as easy as just downloading a cracked game, and so a much smaller portion of the players do it. Modified Xbox's also get banned from on-line play periodically, which also has an effect.

With regards to the PS3, the exploit that allowed people to run pirated games (a flaw in the USB stack drivers) has already been fixed with a firmware update, and as Sony controls the distribution chain that update will be needed to run future games. You can count on it being factory applied to new PS3 stock as well.

Additionally, BD-R discs (and burners) are much more expensive than DVDs, which also limits the amount of piracy that's likely to occur.

There will always be freeloaders, but with the cost of the discs piracy on the PS3 is far from free. Double layer DVDs for the Xbox can be pricey as well, depending on where you live. With that in mind, a lot of the people that freeload on P.C. software will probably buy their console games second hand instead.

In any case, if you track the major torrent sites and indie developers, the rate of piracy on the PC can be as high as 4:1 (4 copies pirated for every copy bought). For the Xbox, the highest I've seen is 1:3 (1 copy for every 3 bought) and the PS3 isn't even worth tracking. As an aside, the developers of some iPhone games with online scoreboards have noted that for every copy of an app bought, they get about 10 distinct users connecting - which suggests piracy is even higher on the iPhone where DRM is not currently used (or used poorly).



With regards to the potential continuity for a sequel : Has anyone considered the option that Eidos/Square decide to open an alternate timeline? That would essentially make HR the start of a new series in a reinterpreted world, similar to the way the SciFi channel completely rewrote Battlestar Galactica.

It probably wouldn't be popular amongst the 'pretentious old men' of the internet, but I'm sure the rest of us could live with that as long as it was well executed. :)

Hammich
16th Sep 2010, 21:39
^question: Where in the hell do people on this forum keep getting these piracy figures from?
Especially given that they're contradictory to each other every time I hear them?

Also there is a chance that if reviewers are honest upon the release of DX: HR and downplay the TP system as a bad play for the series, the game STILL sells well, but the forums are full of similar complaints, mods that allow a full FP stealth system will be among the most popular. The next DX game to be made WILL be more like what we're hoping for.

Unfortunately, it probably won't happen.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
16th Sep 2010, 21:45
Now that was stylish.

Expect nothing less from moi.

Romeo
16th Sep 2010, 22:15
I don't know about the others, but IGN does an article every six months about the current piracy figures collected from various publishers. The specific ones, such as the indie bundle, can be found on wikipedia and the game's home site.

Irate_Iguana
16th Sep 2010, 22:22
I don't know about the others, but IGN does an article every six months about the current piracy figures collected from various publishers.

Who never manage to come up with hard numbers and research data. By the very nature of the piracy problem this can't be gathered without spyware on each and every computer in the world.

nomotog
16th Sep 2010, 22:26
Who never manage to come up with hard numbers and research data. By the very nature of the piracy problem this can't be gathered without spyware on each and every computer in the world.

You don't spy on every computer in the world. Just like you don't poll everyone in the USA about president. You look at the most popular torrent/pirate sights and see what is being downloaded the most and guess the rest of the numbers.

Irate_Iguana
16th Sep 2010, 22:29
You don't spy on every computer in the world. Just like you don't poll everyone in the USA about president. You look at the most popular torrent/pirate sights and see what is being downloaded the most and guess the rest of the numbers.

And that is assuming that the most popular torrent sites are being frequented by most of the pirates and that they form a typical cross section of the pirate population. As I said, research methodology seems to be completely missing from any research being published.

Romeo
16th Sep 2010, 22:37
Well, one could see that if a game sold 100000 copies, and a torrent site has 50000 downloads for that same game, logic would dictate 33% of all copies of that game are pirated.

Irate_Iguana
16th Sep 2010, 22:41
Well, one could see that if a game sold 100000 copies, and a torrent site has 50000 downloads for that same game, logic would dictate 33% of all copies of that game are pirated.

And how would you account for all the sites you missed?

The Monochrome Man
16th Sep 2010, 22:41
^question: Where in the hell do people on this forum keep getting these piracy figures from?


It's actually fairly easy to get them for online games. The publisher knows how many copies of a game they've sold, and the games have to connect to a central server for matchmaking. The number of connections you get in the first two weeks (log MAC addresses or serials, not IP addresses), less the number of copies actually sold gives you a good estimate for the number of copies pirated (given that there'll be some second hand copies in circulation, but not all of the pirates will play online).

The major publishers don't tend to admit their figures, as it makes investors wary if they admit it's a huge problem. Indies tend to self fund however, and so tend to be more open about them. If you float around on tech sites, you tend to see the figures crop up fairly often.

The rates will, of course, vary between titles. Machinarium saw a 95% piracy rate, World of Goo was around 90% (didn't ship with DRM at all), and Demigod (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/04/demigod-hit-by-massive-piracy-review-scores-take-beating.ars) was practically killed by it - so many pirates connected on top of the buying players that when the multiplayer server went up, the server couldn't cope with the demand and tanked. Naturally, that killed its review scores dead. 18,000 paid copies, 120,000 people trying to connect.

Romeo
16th Sep 2010, 23:22
And how would you account for all the sites you missed?
Any of the sites I missed would skew figures in favour of the sales rate. Which, given that they're already listed rather high, is concerning unto itself.

bukkit
16th Sep 2010, 23:46
Perhaps it's better to say that they don't get pirated as much. Getting a pirated game to work on the Xbox isn't as easy as just downloading a cracked game, and so a much smaller portion of the players do it. Modified Xbox's also get banned from on-line play periodically, which also has an effect.

With regards to the PS3, the exploit that allowed people to run pirated games (a flaw in the USB stack drivers) has already been fixed with a firmware update, and as Sony controls the distribution chain that update will be needed to run future games. You can count on it being factory applied to new PS3 stock as well.

Additionally, BD-R discs (and burners) are much more expensive than DVDs, which also limits the amount of piracy that's likely to occur.

There will always be freeloaders, but with the cost of the discs piracy on the PS3 is far from free. Double layer DVDs for the Xbox can be pricey as well, depending on where you live. With that in mind, a lot of the people that freeload on P.C. software will probably buy their console games second hand instead.

In any case, if you track the major torrent sites and indie developers, the rate of piracy on the PC can be as high as 4:1 (4 copies pirated for every copy bought). For the Xbox, the highest I've seen is 1:3 (1 copy for every 3 bought) and the PS3 isn't even worth tracking. As an aside, the developers of some iPhone games with online scoreboards have noted that for every copy of an app bought, they get about 10 distinct users connecting - which suggests piracy is even higher on the iPhone where DRM is not currently used (or used poorly).



With regards to the potential continuity for a sequel : Has anyone considered the option that Eidos/Square decide to open an alternate timeline? That would essentially make HR the start of a new series in a reinterpreted world, similar to the way the SciFi channel completely rewrote Battlestar Galactica.

It probably wouldn't be popular amongst the 'pretentious old men' of the internet, but I'm sure the rest of us could live with that as long as it was well executed. :)

yeah, youre right, i was reacting on Philljcs naive comment , that piracy is not on consoles.
btw : theres allready a number of workarounds for the PS3 firmware, once its cracked theres no going back
thats right, piracy is bigger in nubers for the PC than on the consoles. but still, for example X360 have about 20 000 - 10 000 downloads per game on torrentleech. not a small number imho for a single private tracker. + the X360 games are there sometimes weeks ahead the official release (for some reason) and still ,the X360 multiplatform games have often better sales than the PS3. hmmm how come. when a pc game has a bad sales, they blame the pirates (its the most common and simplest excuse) not the lack of quality in the product itself

and on the record : i dont owe a console, im a pc player. yes i admit i download games. BUT if i like it and for me is worth buying, im more than happy to buy it and be a proud owner of the original.

to the topic :
in my eyes, DE:HR is a pure console game, with the popular diseases that many present games have. so i would say that it wont be dumbed down... cause its the primary developing platform. so PC is the platform we should be worried about, cause thats the one that would be ported. so PC users would have accept the control schemes graphics game mechanics and so on and so on. i was hoping the DE:HR would be a PC game ported to consoles (the right path imho) like Metro2033 for example. PC game with superior graphics and technology , and ported X360 version that still looked very good.

The Monochrome Man
17th Sep 2010, 00:08
As I understand it, HR was developed for all of the platforms at the same time - which means that while the gameplay itself will be the same, the control scheme on the PC should be a proper PC control scheme rather than a console one. On the upside, being cross platform means that joypads should work if people want to use them - I know some PC gamers that do.

So far as looks go, even when they're building for consoles the artists normally work at a higher resolution than you see in the final product - it's compressed down to what the hardware can handle when they start optimising finalising the game. Those higher resolution assets should make their way into the PC version - I don't know if you played Mirrors Edge, but the textures on the PC version were a lot cleaner than the console version, and they did take the time to add extra details to the PC version. PhysX, for instance, simply isn't possible with the hardware on the consoles.


Just to follow up on this statement :


how come when a pc game has a bad sales, they blame the pirates (its the most common and simplest excuse) not the lack of quality in the product itself


If the game was poor quality, the pirates wouldn't waste their time with it. As I said earlier, if the game has an online component it's easy to figure out what the piracy rate is, doubly so given that most games these days are online. Just because the major publishers don't show the raw numbers, doesn't mean they don't have them.

bukkit
17th Sep 2010, 00:22
If the game was poor quality, the pirates wouldn't waste their time with it.

imho 80% of present games are poor, and people download them...people even like them

beastrn
17th Sep 2010, 02:47
Bukkit, I think philljc was being sarcastic!

nathanj
17th Sep 2010, 02:47
piracy isnt as big a threat as the industry makes it out to be. look at sales for high end games like oblivion, fallout 3, mass effect and dragon age etc. both pc and xbox version are equally obtainable through piracy so there is no advantage for consoles here. both sides sell oodles of games with obviously more on the console side simply cause there are more of them.

if developers make a great game than even "pirates" will buy it. people just get sick of plunking down $50 only to be disappointed time after time and piracy is an easy way to preview a game before purchasing it for some people. id be willing to bet that if more games released "demos" that piracy would fall..........dont know how much but it would definitely help.

Pinky_Powers
17th Sep 2010, 02:56
Gabe Newell has some very interesting things to say about Piracy and DRM trash. Apparently, his company doesn't waste any time concerned about it.


Gabe Newell: They’re low enough that we don’t really spend any time [on it]. When you look at the things we sit around and talk about, as big picture cross game issues, we’re way more concerned about the stability of DirectX drivers or, you know, the erroneous banning of people. That’s way more of an issue for us than piracy.

Once you create service value for customers, ongoing service value, piracy seems to disappear, right? It’s like “Oh, you’re still doing something for me? I don’t mind the fact that I paid for this.” Once you actually localise your product in Russia and ship it on the same day that you ship your English language versions, this theoretical hotbed of piracy becomes your second largest- third largest after Germany in continental Europe? Or third after UK?

Erik Johnson: In terms of retail units?

Gabe Newell: In terms of sales of our products, yeah. Overall, Steam plus retail.

Erik Johnson: Probably second. It’s a big number.

Gabe Newell: The point is that there’s this market that you shouldn’t waste your time on, that went from, “You shouldn’t waste our time on it, they’ll just pirate it,” to “it’s actually a really large market for us now,” once you actually do the things that allow your product to be played. And that’s why some of the DRM approaches are so bad, because they create negative value, not positive value.

I’ve had this problem with software, where my machine crashes and I wasn’t able to release my license. So I have high-end CAD software that I have for hobbies, and my machine crashes and now I’m screwed because of their DRM solution. And that’s bad because it’s much harder to justify purchasing software that might just magically disappear and create a huge hassle for you to recover. What you want to do is go the other way, and say, “Anywhere in the world, any time, you can get your software.” It’s even better if you can get it to run on more platforms, which is why Steam Play is cool, so I can buy it on a Mac and play it on a PC and vice versa. That’s a good thing, that moves customers in the direction of thinking, “Oh, my content is more valuable.”

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/15/we-ask-gabe-newell-about-piracy-drm-and-episode-three/

hem dazon 90
17th Sep 2010, 03:09
Oh well, looks like we'll be doing it the hard way.


Seriously man? goatse!?


I've seen worse, like much worse, like SWAP.AVI bad. Christ if you get offended by goatse your a wuss

jtr7
17th Sep 2010, 03:11
You judge people according to standards like that? RLY?

hem dazon 90
17th Sep 2010, 03:14
You judge people according to standards like that? RLY?

http://files.myopera.com/drlaunch/albums/94593/thumbs/no-not-rly001.jpg_thumb.jpg

But still maybe it's the channer in me but the internet has A LOT worse than goatse.

FrankCSIS
17th Sep 2010, 04:49
Pinky, fantastic interview posted. Gabe is right on the money on pretty much everything related to piracy. I'm glad an insider has the guts to flat out mention the obvious, and not hide behind easy answers to complex problems.

jtr7
17th Sep 2010, 04:51
But still maybe it's the channer in me but the internet has A LOT worse than goatse.

It's irrelevant when the threshold of offense shouldn't even reach that level to begin with and shouldn't change from this topic to that.

lithos
17th Sep 2010, 05:22
Gabe Newell has some very interesting things to say about Piracy and DRM trash. Apparently, his company doesn't waste any time concerned about it.

That's the outdated form of business, Pinky. You know, the one where the customer is always right. Now, we OWE companies money! Like taxes! Or tithes to the church!

Pinky_Powers
17th Sep 2010, 06:33
That's the outdated form of business, Pinky. You know, the one where the customer is always right. Now, we OWE companies money! Like taxes! Or tithes to the church!

So long as you have a single major company proving that the system works, nothing's outdated.

Romeo
17th Sep 2010, 15:28
So long as you have a single major company proving that the system works, nothing's outdated.
I don't know... For every Porsche, there's a hundred Kias... I think sports cars/exoticas may be considered outdated now. lol

AlexOfSpades
17th Sep 2010, 15:32
You must have Tier 4 Retarded Augmentation to post Goatse here.

It might be not that much offending, but its off-topic and...

.. well, not pleasant to see.

Romeo
17th Sep 2010, 15:34
Ok, how about everyone stops talking about Goatse from this point forward. Any future posts about it will result in infractions. Good?

mad825
17th Sep 2010, 15:37
Gabe Newell has some very interesting things to say about Piracy and DRM trash. Apparently, his company doesn't waste any time concerned about it.
meh, he's just scape-goating the fact that his DRM has failed not only that, the current problems that still exist within his DRM.

If the company never worried about Piracy (or used game sales), the required connection would be gone.

AlexOfSpades
17th Sep 2010, 15:39
Then i'll speak about that huge Hole in the sea.

For some reason it came into my mind.




... ok sorry


Anyways, i think that bringing Deus Ex to other consoles will make it more popular, which is actually a good thing. You wont go out with your friends and say "Sup did you heard about that new game Deus ex?" and everyone will be like "what are you talking about?"

I think its pretty much just like Fallout series. No one but the geeks knew the first 2 Fallouts (like me~), but then the Fallout 3 came (a great, great game) into the consoles too, and ended up popular.

Popularity encouraged Bethesda to make DLC's and so on, so everyone was happy.

Deus Ex 3 has a lot of changes (just like Fallout 3 had) and may turn into a worldwide success.

I approve the consoles!

(eventhough i dont own one)

mad825
17th Sep 2010, 15:46
I think its pretty much just like Fallout series. No one but the geeks knew the first 2 Fallouts (like me~), but then the Fallout 3 came (a great, great game) into the consoles too, and ended up popular.

Deus Ex 3 has a lot of changes (just like Fallout 3 had) and may turn into a worldwide success.


yea....do you know how the old fallout fans felt? they were ******* pissed off and I fear the same will happen here.

AlexOfSpades
17th Sep 2010, 15:56
yea....do you know how the old fallout fans felt? they were ******* pissed off and I fear the same will happen here.

Oh, that's true. Unfortunately some people are sensitive about changes.

As we say in my language, não se pode agradar a gregos e troianos.

That is, "you cannot please both greeks and trojans."

lithos
17th Sep 2010, 16:26
As they same in my language, if it ain't broke, don't !@#$ing fix it.

nomotog
17th Sep 2010, 16:50
As they same in my language, if it ain't broke, don't !@#$ing fix it.

Now the adage is "It may not be broke, but maybe we can do it better."

Romeo
17th Sep 2010, 19:18
Now the adage is "It may not be broke, but maybe we can do it better."
Well, that's the theory behind hot-rodding. Problem is, people have different tastes. I, for example, don't care about clutch chatter and therefore jumped straight over to a racing clutch for my car. Most people however would hate it. Thus, car manufacturers put in a lower-performance, but more street-friendly clutch. I also don't like perspective changing and regen, but the vast majority of gamers do, and thus, things like rapid regeneration and first-to-third person swaps are in games.

mad825
17th Sep 2010, 19:23
the vast majority of gamers do.

I wonder if there is any Solid evidence could be shown to support that. I haven't personally seen anything apart for the high sales and ratings for Halo (#1)

Romeo
17th Sep 2010, 19:28
I wonder if there is any Solid evidence could be shown to support that. I haven't personally seen anything apart for the high sales and ratings for Halo (#1)
Money speaks. And the sad fact is, most of my peers, and even my younger brother, do prefer crap like BioShock and Call of Duty to systems where getting shot shot actually has consequences.

Cronstintein
17th Sep 2010, 20:18
I only played bioshock briefly but it had a health pick-up system, no?