PDA

View Full Version : TGS 2010 Interview with Dugas, promises more footage of game



Pages : [1] 2

Dr_Bob
19th Sep 2010, 09:48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCgVcpcuMAo

http://tgs.gamespot.com/video/6276499/

IdiotInAJeep
19th Sep 2010, 10:11
Looks like they did listen to the fans. They just didn't care.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 10:14
^
It isn't that they didn't care; as artists I expect they had their own vision for this game.

Good interview. Thanks for posting! Happy to hear they will allow gamers to play it. Sounds promising for a Demo release.
Shame they spelt Jean-Francois's surname incorrectly...

jtr7
19th Sep 2010, 10:17
Thanks again!

Dr_Bob
19th Sep 2010, 10:22
Thanks again!

BTW, Gamespot, is it Degas or Dugas?

I think it's Dugas.

Wouldn't he be wearing an ID card at TGS, anyway?

Silly GameSpot.

beastrn
19th Sep 2010, 10:22
Every time I takedown someone I'm going to hear that laugh

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 10:23
Jean-Francois has a cheeky laugh, love it. :D

That Play Art figure of Adam needs to be on my mantlepiece NOW.

Sabretooth1
19th Sep 2010, 10:23
Dugas laughing like that with the foreboding and evil music in the background is one of the scariest things I've seen in my life.

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 10:32
LOL. His laugh is priceless. That's great.

Anyway, I agree with his take on community input in game development. I sometimes forget that games are not apps, since apps are what I work on. For an app, there is very little creative direction. You meet the needs of the customers in the most efficient way possible, period. How you go about that can be more flexible for some apps than others.

Games on the other hand, are sort of like art. I wouldn't dare to go up to a painter and say "You need more happy little trees or I won't buy prints of your painting." Nor would I go up to a musician and say "I don't like your genre, can you make something else please?"

There comes a point where we have to realize it's their baby. They have way more at stake than we do. Worst case scenario for us is that the game comes out and isn't fun. Worst case scenario for them is being out of a job, with years of development down the giant-ocean-hole-building-thing. I'll trust that they don't want to jeopardize that, and are doing their very best.

I realize I am not playing this game, and haven't ever played it, so my feedback would be useless to them. I simply don't have enough information to make a suggestion that I know is correct. I'll leave that to the playtesters, as Jean-Francois said. They have first hand knowledge and know better than I do what the game is doing right, and what it is doing wrong.

Kodaemon
19th Sep 2010, 10:54
There comes a point where we have to realize it's their baby.

I would agree with you if this was an original IP of theirs.

lithos
19th Sep 2010, 11:12
Games on the other hand, are sort of like art. I wouldn't dare to go up to a painter and say "You need more happy little trees or I won't buy prints of your painting." Nor would I go up to a musician and say "I don't like your genre, can you make something else please?"

Nor would a painter have a bunch of researchers, accountants and management breathing their neck saying "The numbers say do this."


I would agree with you if this was an original IP of theirs.

+Infinity. I believe NKD's now required to say "Touché."

Ilves
19th Sep 2010, 11:17
Every time I takedown someone I'm going to hear that laugh.

*shivers*

I have no concept of how large the Japanese market is compared to the, um, rest of the world, so this may be just me being paranoid, but ever since the latest trailer I'm seriously beginning to see Square's fingerprints all over this game, right down to AJ's physical appearance and tpv. No idea if the financial merits would be rewarding enough to actually try to appeal to the Japanese explicitly. :scratch:

Heck, japanization would even herd in a significant amount of new western gamers that would otherwise shun a more traditional DX; case in point, the loud cheers the japanese TGS trailer gathered.

Mindmute
19th Sep 2010, 11:32
It isn't that they didn't care; as artists I expect they had their own vision for this game.


Then, like others have mentioned, they could've used it on a new IP or compromised to keep true to this one.

I find it fantastic however, to finally hear a somewhat clear admission of "We knew the fanbase of DX wasn't happy, we just ignored it".

It's funny that even with the tiny snippets of content we have, the so-called "generic cool" is present in enough quantity to make me cringe. I'm very close to saying that the rocketeer stuff was the "last straw".
If you think back a bit and look at the earlier discussions I have always been very positive about the game and slowly getting more negative, to the point where I might not even buy it anymore.

That's it from me too, I guess, have fun. ;)

Ilves
19th Sep 2010, 11:35
I find it fantastic however, to finally hear a somewhat clear admission of "We knew the fanbase of DX wasn't happy, we just ignored it".

Talk about a punch to the face, eh? Meh, it's been a long time coming. :p

lithos
19th Sep 2010, 12:08
It's funny that even with the tiny snippets of content we have, the so-called "generic cool" is present in enough quantity to make me cringe. I'm very close to saying that the rocketeer stuff was the "last straw".

In before..."You just hate all gaming! Everyone who doesn't like this game is inferior and has a small *****! I'm sick of you 'smart types' trying to ruin gaming!"

I agree, it's getting worse by the minute, but maybe the gameplay trailers will show us some more stuff (I'm hoping for a trailer that about five solid minutes of gameplay, without commentary.) I'm still very, very cautiously optimistic. There's still glimmers of greatness in their, but so far all we've seen is more Michael Bay-esque "epic" trailers.

And I'm glad Dugas has taken a stand on his vision. That I can respect. Not this cake-and-eat-it-too that's been coming from EM lately ("We're going to please everyone, despite they fact that we're trying to appeal to the broadest possible consumer base!")

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 12:14
...they could've used it on a new IP or compromised to keep true to this one.
Why?

DX:HR's story is connected to the IP so it makes sense to me to use the Deus Ex name; and just because they have added changes doesn't mean they haven't kept "true" to the game. Of course, we all have different ideas of what being true to the game is...



I find it fantastic however, to finally hear a somewhat clear admission of "We knew the fanbase of DX wasn't happy, we just ignored it".

At least quote Dugas in context.

He clearly says that it was really useful at the beginning of the project to see what the fans thought was important. They listened, but it didn't mean they wanted to listen to everything. They looked into it to see what they're doing versus what people expect - to see if it was going too much one way or the other. He acknowledges that some people are not happy but they have continued to make the game.

Obviously, it's impossible to please everyone. That is what he is saying. Not that he just wanted to "ignore".

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 12:19
I would agree with you if this was an original IP of theirs.

What's that have to do with it? They own the IP and they have the only major stake in this project. It's theirs to do with what they will. Not yours, not mine, and certainly not Ion Storms, after the bang up job they did with Invisible War.

They are the ones investing millions of dollars and putting their jobs on the line. Don't you think that's pretty good incentive to make a successful game? Don't you think that gives them the right to make their own creative decisions?

Do you honestly feel they are obligated to do what a vocal minority want over what is actually good for the game, good for the company, and good for their ability to exercise their own creativity?

xsamitt
19th Sep 2010, 12:30
From my stand point as Dugas said,The title is finished.I choose to be positive and support the good guys and girls at EM.I also respect their decision to go the route they've gone,there is little point in trying to change tings as it's play testing from here on out.I firmly believe this will be a very interesting title regardless of what the naysayers opinions may be.Half empty or half full,it's really each individual outlook from here on end.Now is time to show our true support of the title.
Hats off to EM.

Bluey71
19th Sep 2010, 12:30
...and good for their ability to exercise their own creativity?

Well you were looking pretty good up to this point. If you had even bothered to look at what people were unhappy about with this game, you would know that EM's 'creativity' appears to have been centered around making the game appealing to the low generic masses. Hardly very creative of them eh?

I could on and pull up every negative decision they have thus far made - but really whats the point? It all equates to the same sad fact - the mighty Deus Ex has finally been watered down for the masses in what is probably an unstoppable snowball effect for any subsequent game.

lithos
19th Sep 2010, 12:31
I love how you think that artistic integrity is simply buying stuff, NKD.

Pretentious Old Man.
19th Sep 2010, 13:02
successful game?

Successful =/= Good =/= Artistically and Creatively Pure.

It's just not good enough to give accountants and bean counters free reign just because "it's your job on the line". That's EXACTLY the thinking that brought us Invisible War.

xsamitt
19th Sep 2010, 13:05
Successful =/= Good =/= Artistically and Creatively Pure.

It's just not good enough to give accountants and bean counters free reign just because "it's your job on the line". That's EXACTLY the thinking that brought us Invisible War.

I hope for both our sakes,seeing we are both old men,that it will not be the case this time.:thumb:

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 13:05
Well you were looking pretty good up to this point. If you had even bothered to look at what people were unhappy about with this game, you would know that EM's 'creativity' appears to have been centered around making the game appealing to the low generic masses. Hardly very creative of them eh?

I'm speaking in general about listening to forum flamers, not addressing any specific concern. Some are more valid than others, but all are based on very little information, since very little information is exactly what we have been provided.

That said, yes, some decisions are going to be made in order to increase the games popularity. What the hell do you expect them to do, ship some turd that only a couple thousand DX fanboys like? This isn't a volunteer project. They've got millions of dollars they need to make back.

I get so sick and tired of people who are so naive they think that you can make games for niche markets and then spend millions on them. Doesn't work.


I could on and pull up every negative decision they have thus far made - but really whats the point? It all equates to the same sad fact - the mighty Deus Ex has finally been watered down for the masses in what is probably an unstoppable snowball effect for any subsequent game.

That happened 5 years ago.


Successful =/= Good =/= Artistically and Creatively Pure.

That's right. To have a successful game, you have to compromise. Worst case scenario, your game is successful but some fanboys hate it. To have a creatively pure game, you have to risk never getting the game to market at all, and even losing your job or studio.

You can't have your fancy games for millions of dollars and then expect them to not care about how it sells.

Pretentious Old Man.
19th Sep 2010, 13:12
You can't have your fancy games for millions of dollars and then expect them to not care about how it sells.

Here lies the fundamental communication breakdown between the two of us: Where did I ever ask for, and I quote, "fancy games for millions of dollars"? I find the current industry of obscene expense laughable. When games like Rome: Total War and Morrowind can be developed with a team of about 20-30 people (look it up if you don't believe me), I consider that anything more than that is gross excess.

In the words of Adam Jensen: "I never asked for this".

PillsAgainstOrders
19th Sep 2010, 13:14
Im here expecting them to make Deus ex so it better be Deus ex! Not some goddamn halo/masseff crap. Just change the title if its not DX. :/

"Wow, I just listened some Black Sabbath. Im gonna make a new Black Sabbath album!"
"Eeh..okay? Do you have Ozzy singging on it?"
"Nah...hes voice acting Mickey on some disney film atm.. But we did some research and found out that the next-gen peeps like justin biederp. Ozzy was too old anyway."

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 13:18
Putting what you love or hate about the dev process aside, we may as well all relax. It is extremely doubtful that anyone here will NOT play DX:HR, regardless.

Am I right... or wrong? ;)

Red
19th Sep 2010, 13:22
What the hell do you expect them to do, ship some turd that only a couple thousand DX fanboys like?

Ouffff... Em... Nah, I won't even... I'll leave for someone else to do it.


Putting what you love or hate about the dev process aside, we may as well all relax. It is extremely doubtful that anyone here will NOT play DX:HR, regardless.

Am I right... or wrong? ;)

You're right all right. It just a matter of who'll actually pay for it...

xsamitt
19th Sep 2010, 13:24
Putting what you love or hate about the dev process aside, we may as well all relax. It is extremely doubtful that anyone here will NOT play DX:HR, regardless.

Am I right... or wrong? ;)

Quite right you are sir....It's like crack cocaine to most of us.:whistle:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 13:30
Ouffff... Em... Nah, I won't even... I'll leave for someone else do it.
LOL.
I'd like to know where NKD got that 'couple of thousand' figure from. :nut:

Bluey71
19th Sep 2010, 13:32
It is extremely doubtful that anyone here will NOT play DX:HR, regardless.

Am I right... or wrong?

You are right - but what you fail to understand - and I have been saying this on and off for the past 3 years now - that there will be a difference between the price you will willingly pay for it - and the price I am prepared to pay for it. Thats where the difference is, and it's a distinction far too few will make.

Baesment bargins are a wonderful thing you know ;)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 13:36
You are right - but what you fail to understand - and I have been saying this on and off for the past 3 years now - that there will be a difference between the price you will willingly pay for it - and the price I am prepared to pay for it. Thats where the difference is, and it's a distinction far too few will make.

Baesment bargins are a wonderful thing you know ;)


Be assured, I haven't failed to understand any point. It just isn't a point that is relevant to my question.
I asked if you would still play the game regardless. The fact that you are all happy to admit that you will, is all I needed to know... and it's very telling; in light of your complaints. ;)

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 13:37
Here lies the fundamental communication breakdown between the two of us: Where did I ever ask for, and I quote, "fancy games for millions of dollars"? I find the current industry of obscene expense laughable. When games like Rome: Total War and Morrowind can be developed with a team of about 20-30 people (look it up if you don't believe me), I consider that anything more than that is gross excess.

In the words of Adam Jensen: "I never asked for this".

Gamers expect a pretty high level of production values and technical whizz-bang features for $50-60. I mean, yeah, theoretically you could make a game more affordably, and make it a $30 budget title and possibly have to make a few less compromises creatively. But then you'd also be limiting what you can do.

You get what you pay for. If you want content that is deep, polished, and plentiful, you've gotta hire a pretty good sized team to create assets. Writers, modelers, texture artists, concept artists, world designers, audio guys. There's always a trade off when you start spending less. You don't get something for nothing.


Im here expecting them to make Deus ex so it better be Deus ex! Not some goddamn halo/masseff crap. Just change the title if its not DX. :/

And who decides what is "Deus Ex"? You? Even amongst the hardcore fanboys nobody can seem to agree what the defining characteristics are.

Is it the conspiracies and story richness? Nope. DXHR has that and no one seems to care. All they care about is whether or not AJ uses a rocket vehicle to get from one location to another at one point in the game.

Is it the multiple choices in how you complete a given task in the game? Nope. DXHR has that and no one even talks about it. All they can talk about is climbing up a ladder in third person.

Is it the provocative questions it raises about the future of humanity, transhumanism, and so on? Nope. DXHR has those, but people would rather discuss whether AJ's hair is right or not, or if his jacket is long enough.


LOL.
I'd like to know where NKD got that 'couple of thousand' figure from. :nut:

I was making a point. People think that they should design this game with no consideration for how many copies it will sell, or how many people will like it. They think that their desires outweigh the desires of a the larger group. Why? Because they believe they are superior.

lithos
19th Sep 2010, 13:45
Putting what you love or hate about the dev process aside, we may as well all relax. It is extremely doubtful that anyone here will NOT play DX:HR, regardless.

Am I right... or wrong? ;)

That's not really much of an option. We pay for the game, and if we don't like it...you've already got our money.

Pretentious Old Man.
19th Sep 2010, 13:47
Gamers expect a pretty high level of production values and technical whizz-bang features for $50-60. I mean, yeah, theoretically you could make a game more affordably, and make it a $30 budget title and possibly have to make a few less compromises creatively. But then you'd also be limiting what you can do.

You get what you pay for. If you want content that is deep, polished, and plentiful, you've gotta hire a pretty good sized team to create assets. Writers, modelers, texture artists, concept artists, world designers, audio guys. There's always a trade off when you start spending less. You don't get something for nothing.



And who decides what is "Deus Ex"? You? Even amongst the hardcore fanboys nobody can seem to agree what the defining characteristics are.

Is it the conspiracies and story richness? Nope. DXHR has that and no one seems to care. All they care about is whether or not AJ uses a rocket vehicle to get from one location to another at one point in the game.

Is it the multiple choices in how you complete a given task in the game? Nope. DXHR has that and no one even talks about it. All they can talk about is climbing up a ladder in third person.

Is it the provocative questions it raises about the future of humanity, transhumanism, and so on? Nope. DXHR has those, but people would rather discuss whether AJ's hair is right or not, or if his jacket is long enough.



I was making a point. People think that they should design this game with no consideration for how many copies it will sell, or how many people will like it. They think that their desires outweigh the desires of a the larger group. Why? Because they believe they are superior.

I'll try framing this differently: Why does every game or franchise have to devolve into an arcade bulletfest simply because it sells quite well?

(And yes, that was hyperbole. But not too far off the truth)

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 13:53
I'll try framing this differently: Why does every game or franchise have to devolve into an arcade bulletfest simply because it sells quite well?

Because game development is a business. You don't intentionally throw away potential sales if you care about your business. There are plenty of games out there that aren't "arcade bulletfests," they just aren't being made by major publishers who aren't structured to make smaller budget titles.


(And yes, that was hyperbole. But not too far off the truth)

I haven't really seen any indication that DXHR is an "arcade bulletfest."

Bluey71
19th Sep 2010, 13:54
and it's very telling; in light of your complaints.

Yea I guess it does show just how much I think of DX1 as a fantastic experience.


That's not really much of an option. We pay for the game, and if we don't like it...you've already got our money.

Well that's easily sorted - you have full control over how much you pay for the game, simply by choosing to play it later rather than right after it goes to retail. If you are unsure about how the game sounds at this point, kinda makes sense not to throw good money at it so soon,no?

Sabretooth1
19th Sep 2010, 14:26
You're all missing the highlight of the interview, really.

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5593/dugaslaugh.gif

Ilves
19th Sep 2010, 14:29
^ :lol:http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/35.gif

IH-Denton
19th Sep 2010, 14:30
You're all missing the highlight of the interview, really.

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5593/dugaslaugh.gif

this is scary :D

TrickyVein
19th Sep 2010, 14:33
*shivers*

I have no concept of how large the Japanese market is compared to the, um, rest of the world, so this may be just me being paranoid, but ever since the latest trailer I'm seriously beginning to see Square's fingerprints all over this game, right down to AJ's physical appearance and tpv. No idea if the financial merits would be rewarding enough to actually try to appeal to the Japanese explicitly. :scratch:

Heck, japanization would even herd in a significant amount of new western gamers that would otherwise shun a more traditional DX; case in point, the loud cheers the japanese TGS trailer gathered.

You have managed to frame my thoughts exactly. This, I think, is the root of the majority of what leaves a sour (or should I say sweet and sour?) taste in my mouth when I ponder the game's design and vision.

IOOI
19th Sep 2010, 15:05
Of course, we all have different ideas of what being true to the game is...

I could say the same thing about the definition of art and the "artist's vision". ;)

Sotsiak
19th Sep 2010, 15:09
@ NKD

You always talk about money, and use it to make your points. But this is exactly where the problem is.
You talked about art, that games are an art, but art has nothing to do with money.
These days game developers see their jobs as a serious business, they try to get as much money as possible, but it is not an art anymore. To get much money, they need a broader audience, thus dumbing down every game they get on their hands. This is our problem, and that's why people, who want "real" games, are negative.

The Monochrome Man
19th Sep 2010, 15:16
Here lies the fundamental communication breakdown between the two of us: Where did I ever ask for, and I quote, "fancy games for millions of dollars"? I find the current industry of obscene expense laughable. When games like Rome: Total War and Morrowind can be developed with a team of about 20-30 people (look it up if you don't believe me), I consider that anything more than that is gross excess.

In the words of Adam Jensen: "I never asked for this".

A game that takes 30 staff 2 years to make is going to cost ((~$40,000 x 30) + contractors (voice actors, MoCap etc) + equipment + rent + power + middleware licensing). The wage bill alone is going to top $1.2M *per year*.

When the games you put forward as examples themselves had multi-million dollar budgets, you might need to reconsider your argument.

We already know from the writeups of the gameplay demos that HR is no bullet-fest unless you make it one, so that argument's a bit of a straw man as well.



@Ilves : I'm sure they said even before Square bought them out that one of their inspirations for character design was Nomura. It's certainly not the only influence though - I get a 2000AD vibe from a lot of the design work as well, with a little bit of Frank Miller.

mus42
19th Sep 2010, 15:17
I find the amount of whiners on these forums amazing. The very fact that there's even going to be a new Deus Ex game should make people happy. Of course its not going to be the original Deus Ex game, we already have that! I just hope the new game is cool and fun to play. Based on what I've seen so far I'm feeling positive and looking forward to it.

Maybe some people need to find another game to take an interest in, or go back to playing Deus Ex over and over again, ignoring anything new.

Oh and I still enjoy playing Deus Ex BUT I'm also open to something new.

JaqTaar
19th Sep 2010, 15:24
These days game developers see their jobs as a serious business, they try to get as much money as possible, but it is not an art anymore.To get much money, they need a broader audience, thus dumbing down every game they get on their hands. This is our problem, and that's why people, who want "real" games, are negative.

You might give the developers the benefit of the doubt and differentiate between them and the publishers.

rokstrombo
19th Sep 2010, 15:55
@ NKD

You always talk about money, and use it to make your points. But this is exactly where the problem is.
You talked about art, that games are an art, but art has nothing to do with money.
These days game developers see their jobs as a serious business, they try to get as much money as possible, but it is not an art anymore. To get much money, they need a broader audience, thus dumbing down every game they get on their hands. This is our problem, and that's why people, who want "real" games, are negative.

I think your point could be clearer if you made some attempt to justify these opinions. For example:

How is it that art has nothing to do with money, when the creation of that art may involve great expense?

Can you provide some evidence for your supposition that "they try to get as much money as possible"? Who specifically compromised their art to get as much money as possible from this project and in which ways?

Who are you or anyone else to decide how others should allocate their resources (funding, talent, time, energy, etc)?

IOOI
19th Sep 2010, 16:17
The very fact that there's even going to be a new Deus Ex game should make people happy.

And it did, in the beggining, when they were talking about not making the same mistakes from IW and that the game would be more close to DX1. But after some questionable decisions some started to doubt EM's words.


Maybe some people need to find another game to take an interest in

Yeah, some people are looking for specific "experiences".
To me, right now, the closest thing to DX gameplay wise is Fallout 3. It might not have a cyberpunk setting but I think I'll have to go with it until there's another game that takes the same evolutionary steps.

Bummer. :(




How is it that art has nothing to do with money, when the creation of that art may involve great expense?


That's a good question. Big projects always have someone, besides the artist, supporting the costs and are made to fullfil someone's fantasies or desires. That's why I have this conviction that some things that are considered art in the end are nothing more than entertainment.

68_pie
19th Sep 2010, 16:21
The very fact that there's even going to be a new Deus Ex game should make people happy. Of course its not going to be the original Deus Ex game, we already have that! I just hope the new game is cool and fun to play.

Why should we be happy just because there's a new game with the Deus Ex name on it? Why should we not demand a game that lives up to the original? This was the exact attitude people took when Fallout 3 came out. People were saying you should be happy cause you have something new. Er no thanks. When you're given something that is a complete bastardization of the original (not that DXHR necessarily will be) why should we not complain.

P.S. Dude, we already know that it's going to be CoolTM

Ilves
19th Sep 2010, 16:27
Now let's all take a deep breath and not fall into this trap again. :group_hug:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bfCUpl9D3vE/SaoaHXX9zNI/AAAAAAAABcY/Bao4vHS687w/s400/blog+mtm+flower+field.gif


@Ilves : I'm sure they said even before Square bought them out that one of their inspirations for character design was Nomura.

You're kidding. You think you could find that in writing somewhere?

Deltaslayer
19th Sep 2010, 17:02
Looks like someone is paid to defend Eidos Montreal...

nomotog
19th Sep 2010, 17:12
Game makers make games for people to play. They should listen to the complains/complements. If you don't then you get games like APB, but they also have to weigh them with other peoples as well as there own. The options on the DX forum don't weigh as much as the option of people who have actually played the game.

azarhal
19th Sep 2010, 17:22
And it did, in the beggining, when they were talking about not making the same mistakes from IW and that the game would be more close to DX1. But after some questionable decisions some started to doubt EM's words.

You know, I read numerous people say "questionable decisions", but so far I haven't seen any explanations of what these are.

What questionable decisions?

Sotsiak
19th Sep 2010, 17:23
I think your point could be clearer if you made some attempt to justify these opinions. For example:

How is it that art has nothing to do with money, when the creation of that art may involve great expense?

Can you provide some evidence for your supposition that "they try to get as much money as possible"? Who specifically compromised their art to get as much money as possible from this project and in which ways?

Who are you or anyone else to decide how others should allocate their resources (funding, talent, time, energy, etc)?

What I wanted to say is that there is a small difference between making something because you really feel that you want to express what you think and making something just to make money. I am not the one to say if devs do the one or the other, I also don't say that you can't make money by making "art".
It is just that there are signs (HR, TP, takedowns etc) that make you feel like this is just for money. Like this game is made that way (cool and epic) so they reach a bigger audience so they get more money.

Thats how I feel.

Irate_Iguana
19th Sep 2010, 17:24
Putting what you love or hate about the dev process aside, we may as well all relax. It is extremely doubtful that anyone here will NOT play DX:HR, regardless.

Am I right... or wrong? ;)

Dead wrong. If this game turns out to be too big a departure from a proper DX game then I won't play it. I loathe Fallout 3 for what it did to the Fallout franchise and as a result have not played it. Don't make the mistake of thinking we are all mindless consumer sheep.

VectorM
19th Sep 2010, 18:00
Well you were looking pretty good up to this point. If you had even bothered to look at what people were unhappy about with this game, you would know that EM's 'creativity' appears to have been centered around making the game appealing to the low generic masses. Hardly very creative of them eh?

Creativity has nothing to do with who your target demographic is. Stop being silly.


centered around making the game appealing to the low generic masses

10x for pointing out that people who like what you don't like are low generic idiots. I am sure you would get lots of friends if you applied this type of thinking consitently :rolleyes:

This is seriously sounding more and more as the generic gripes of old people: "Oh, these dumb kids these days, the world is becoming dumber and dumber" :rolleyes:


It is just that there are signs (HR, TP, takedowns etc) that make you feel like this is just for money. Like this game is made that way (cool and epic) so they reach a bigger audience so they get more money

I could also say that the first DX was made the way it was in order to make more sales from innovation.

People need to stop automatically equating the profit motive with bad intentions.

Hell, there is even evidence that suggests Shakespeare made everything we know him for just to make a buck at the theatre :rolleyes:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 18:07
Dead wrong. If this game turns out to be too big a departure from a proper DX game then I won't play it. I loathe Fallout 3 for what it did to the Fallout franchise and as a result have not played it. Don't make the mistake of thinking we are all mindless consumer sheep.

I never thought (or suggested) for one moment that everyone here are mindless consumer sheep; so not sure where you get this one from. I just asked everyone whether, truthfully, they would still end up playing the game. A straightforward question, inviting a straightforward answer.

So, from what you know and have seen so far, is there enough 'departure' for you to decide here and now whether or not you will play the game? If you haven't reached the point-of-no-return yet (which your statement suggests), then I presume you still intend to play DX:HR at this point, and thus belong in the 'yes' camp with the others. Correct?

Irate_Iguana
19th Sep 2010, 18:15
I never thought (or suggested) for one moment that everyone here are mindless consumer sheep; so not sure where you get this one from.

From your initial question where it seemed the only option was "you will play this game". Looks like I misinterpreted your statement.



So, from what you know and have seen so far, is there enough 'departure' for you to decide here and now whether or not you will play the game? If you haven't reached the point-of-no-return yet (which your statement suggests), then I presume you still intend to play DX:HR at this point, and thus belong in the 'yes' camp with the others. Correct?

Honestly, I'm not so sure right now if I will play HR. I've seen a lot that I don't like. There has been no solid information regarding the things I am most interested in. There seems to be an awful lot of "cool, epic and handholding" in the game. I don't think I belong in the "yes" camp at this point in time. The coming months will either see me shift towards "yes" because of what EM releases, or it will put me off this game entirely.

VectorM
19th Sep 2010, 18:16
So, from what you know and have seen so far, is there enough 'departure' for you to decide here and now whether or not you will play the game? If you haven't reached the point-of-no-return yet (which your statement suggests), then I presume you still intend to play DX:HR at this point, and thus belong in the 'yes' camp with the others. Correct?

Just because some people won't buy it, doesn't mean they can't play it, if you know what I mean ;)

Irate_Iguana
19th Sep 2010, 18:19
Just because some people won't buy, doesn't mean they can't play it, if you know what I mean ;)

I'm not big into piracy. Either I buy a game or I don't play it.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 18:21
From your initial question where it seemed the only option was "you will play this game". Looks like I misinterpreted your statement.

I guess you missed out the "Am I right... or wrong?" bit. So, that invites a "Yes" or "No". I'm not wishing to argue over anybody's reasons for their choice, as this is a personal decision I wouldn't dream of interfering with.


Honestly, I'm not so sure right now if I will play HR. I've seen a lot that I don't like. There has been no solid information regarding the things I am most interested in. There seems to be an awful lot of "cool, epic and handholding" in the game. I don't think I belong in the "yes" camp at this point in time. The coming months will either see me shift towards "yes" because of what EM releases, or it will put me off this game entirely.

Fair comment.



Just because some people won't buy it, doesn't mean they can't play it, if you know what I mean ;)

Yes, I know what you mean. But it's still irrelevant to my question. I asked if you would play it. From your answer, you are another one in the 'yes' camp. Correct?


I'm not big into piracy. Either I buy a game or I don't play it.
An even fairer comment, and I can definitely respect this.

IOOI
19th Sep 2010, 18:30
You know, I read numerous people say "questionable decisions", but so far I haven't seen any explanations of what these are.

What questionable decisions?

Some of them are summarized here (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=110449). But if you want to know the rest please make a search about "1st/3rd/third/first person", "takedown", "shadow stealth", "stealth", "skills", "Immersion", "locational/localized damage"...

And if you want an example of how much we discussed them, here's a small list of threads about Regenerating Health (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1225293).

Have fun. :cool:

xsamitt
19th Sep 2010, 18:32
Some simple facts.

Game is finished
Your either going to buy it or not
Your either positive or not,or perhaps a little reserved.
As far as development goes,no more input from us is needed.
All the bickering in the work won't change a thing at this point.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 18:34
Some simple facts.

Game is finished
Your either going to buy it or not
Your either positive or not,or perhaps a little reserved.
As far as development goes,no more input from us is needed.
All the bickering in the work would change a thing at this point.

Very good, thank you... and I'm respecting the logic here.

xsamitt
19th Sep 2010, 18:43
Very good, thank you... and I'm respecting the logic here.

Regardless of who likes this title or not.......I am very thankful that we have even the semblance of a Duse EX title.I am very optimistic about what I've seen.It's time to show our support.DX is on the horizon.I am stoked to be honest.
Any post I've ever made was done so in the spirit of helping EM,including the hard hitting ones.I want this title to be very successful.A DX title is one of the hardest games to create.Us the fans prove that everyday on these forums.
So here's to EM for having the guts to even attempt a DX game.I wish you guys all the best.

IOOI
19th Sep 2010, 18:54
'Tis the official DX discussion board, we can continue to discuss all things related to DX ("positive" or "negative") 'til they shut this place down. Just because the "old campers" are here for long doesn't mean that "new people" aren't interested in knowing what's going on.

And I respect this logic. :cool:

xsamitt
19th Sep 2010, 19:04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1HVF7BE75I&feature=related

Dead-Eye
19th Sep 2010, 19:23
Putting what you love or hate about the dev process aside, we may as well all relax. It is extremely doubtful that anyone here will NOT play DX:HR, regardless.

Am I right... or wrong? ;)
I might not buy it opening day. I think I'm going to wait for Yahtzee's review before I buy. He did a vary good job of putting Bioshock into prospective and Deus Ex 3 is targeting the same market. So if Yahtzee tells us it's bad then I'm going to wait until it's 20 bucks on steam. If he tells us it's good then I will buy it for full price.



And who decides what is "Deus Ex"? You? Even amongst the hardcore fanboys nobody can seem to agree what the defining characteristics are.

Is it the conspiracies and story richness? Nope. DXHR has that and no one seems to care. All they care about is whether or not AJ uses a rocket vehicle to get from one location to another at one point in the game.

We don't know if Human Revaluations plot is good or not, yet. How can you say something has something when you don't know if it dose.



Is it the provocative questions it raises about the future of humanity, transhumanism, and so on? Nope. DXHR has those, but people would rather discuss whether AJ's hair is right or not, or if his jacket is long enough.

Same as above.



I could also say that the first DX was made the way it was in order to make more sales from innovation.

Actually you can't say that without sounding like an idiot. Warren and team made a game that they wanted to make, weather it was profitable or not was all just a gamble.

At this point it looks like the gameplay isn't going to be anything revolutionary. For me that isn't a huge issue. I was never super attached to Deus Ex's game play anyways. I don't like the handholding aspects, but that is sadly something we are just going to need to deal with in the grown up days of video gaming... :scratch:

What's far more important to me is the story and replayablitiy. If the game has a good story, good music, good character development and is an all around engaging experience then I can forgive the sub par gameplay. I mean that last game in the franchise was Invisable War and that game was horribly disappointing. Human Revalution looks like it's going to be better. Dugas said that the game was going to please most of the fans, hopefully he is right.

El_Bel
19th Sep 2010, 19:28
Some simple facts.

Game is finished
Your either going to buy it or not
Your either positive or not,or perhaps a little reserved.
As far as development goes,no more input from us is needed.
All the bickering in the work won't change a thing at this point.

Nope thats not true. Just a while ago they told us that we would just choose a response when we spoke. A lot of us said that we would like to know what we are going to say. They changed it now, you choose a response but you can read what you are going to say.

Shralla
19th Sep 2010, 19:54
Dead wrong. If this game turns out to be too big a departure from a proper DX game then I won't play it. I loathe Fallout 3 for what it did to the Fallout franchise and as a result have not played it. Don't make the mistake of thinking we are all mindless consumer sheep.

Right... Playing a fun game makes you a mindless consumer sheep. Silly me, I must have missed that economics lesson.

Bluey71
19th Sep 2010, 19:57
10x for pointing out that people who like what you don't like are low generic idiots. I am sure you would get lots of friends if you applied this type of thinking consitently

Before you start calling other people silly - perhaps you should learn how to spell...

As for the rest of your post, deliberately missing my point is a poor way to hide your lack of thought into your answer. Or. were you trying to say that EM are showing no evidence of creativity at all? Shouting your mouth off because you have nothing interesting to say is, well in your words, silly ;)

Mindmute
19th Sep 2010, 20:01
At least quote Dugas in context.

He clearly says that it was really useful at the beginning of the project to see what the fans thought was important. They listened, but it didn't mean they wanted to listen to everything. They looked into it to see what they're doing versus what people expect - to see if it was going too much one way or the other. He acknowledges that some people are not happy but they have continued to make the game.

Obviously, it's impossible to please everyone. That is what he is saying. Not that he just wanted to "ignore".

Really? Then just for the sake of me finally understanding where you're coming from with that before I go back into lurking, please answer this for me:


When did they exactly listen to the fans?

When they respected the continuity by not drastically introducing technology that's more advanced than what the first game portrays 20ish years ahead?

When they changed the health model back to a compromise between ressource management and lasting consequences to actions rather than HR where the consequences happen on a minute basis and have no bearing on the rest of the overall experience?

When they gave people a chance to actually play in first person by introducing something as simple as "Lean Keys"?

When they changed the skill-system back so it wouldn't be interlocked with the agumentation one, therefore giving people who didn't want to augment a chance to actually advance their character in a RPG?

Did they separate lockpicking and electronic bypassing back into two different approaches and give them a skill/aug/ressource based use rather than dilute it all into one hacking approach?




These were all major gripes that the community had with the game, and most of them rather early on, when they were "listening to the fans".



I like you as a moderator MyImmortal and you seem like a very nice person aswell and I can even understand if you like or don't mind these things, but they were *the* issues the community pointed out and absolutely nothing was done about them.

Even if you feel you should defend EM for doing something you like, you'll have to admit that they just never cared about what the community had to say (we were never their main demographic, as seen by the difference between the old members who already left and these ones who recently joined) even back then, despite what Dugas might say.

handgriffsorgfaeltig
19th Sep 2010, 20:02
years ago, in a time of pleasure i almost melted my GPU with Morrowind. One day Oblivion hit the stores and i rushed into it; beside that cruel bugfest, i got a nice game, a clean one and ... so not morrowindish !

I want to hazard aguess that for the most people in here Deus Ex was the equivalent of a holy experience. Deus Ex 2 had to deal with very high expectations and for myself it showed a weakness... so console-d ( yeah, everytime the same arguments from the pc-corner ^^). Deus Ex 3 will be in front of crossroads all the time; become the true follower of the bladerunner path, get along with japanese insanity of structure beatin bots or maybe their is something in between. There will be changes to dislike, but also a touching likelihood of nearness to all the fine influences that damed up a decade.

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 20:15
I like you as a moderator MyImmortal and you seem like a very nice person aswell and I can even understand if you like or don't mind these things, but they were *the* issues the community pointed out and absolutely nothing was done about them.

A developer on another game I follow said a couple months back that the sort of community feedback they listen to is the stuff that is in line with the creative direction of their game, but that may have slipped their minds. No, they aren't going to listen to a vocal minority when designing major gameplay aspects, but on smaller stuff the community certainly has input. Why? Because developers know they aren't perfect. They have a vision in place for their game, but they know they might be overlooking a thing or two.

Frankly we don't know where they've listened to us. Only where they haven't. We don't know what aspects of this game were originally concepted as something else, but got changed. We aren't privy to the details of their design process.

What some people point out as "issues" are more frequently just differences of opinion on how something should be done. There's nothing inherently bad about the stuff you mentioned. It's just stuff you don't like. Unfortunately you don't have millions of dollars to cover their bill for this game, so they have to consider other peoples opinions too.

Why do people assume that the only "community" they should listen to are the hardcore DX fanboys?

pringlepower
19th Sep 2010, 20:17
Did they separate lockpicking and electronic bypassing back into two different approaches and give them a skill/aug/ressource based use rather than dilute it all into one hacking approach?



To change a cutscene where all you have to do is press one button and go into "easy-mode", allowing the game to do your hacking/lockpicking/multitooling for you like a spoiled little mentally-challenged child?

But we don't care about the game taking away control from the player, do we? That's not us.

IOOI
19th Sep 2010, 20:21
We aren't privy to the details of their design process.

I so want to see an HR Post-Mortem.

Mindmute
19th Sep 2010, 20:25
No, they aren't going to listen to a vocal minority when designing major gameplay aspects, but on smaller stuff the community certainly has input.


When most of those things surfaced, specifically HR and inability to play in 1st person, it wasn't a vocal minority complaining, it was a majority.



What some people point out as "issues" are more frequently just differences of opinion on how something should be done. There's nothing inherently bad about the stuff you mentioned. It's just stuff you don't like. Unfortunately you don't have millions of dollars to cover their bill for this game, so they have to consider other peoples opinions too.


Like I said before, it's not just *my* opinion and I actually don't have a problem with half of those things, I was pointing out to MyImmortal several instances where most of the community didn't like the news, yet no action was taken at all.
It's their own right to do with their game as they please, I just don't get how people say they listened to the community, when all of the earlier community feedback was centered on aspects they did nothing about.




To change a cutscene where all you have to do is press one button and go into "easy-mode", allowing the game to do your hacking/lockpicking/multitooling for you like a spoiled little mentally-challenged child?

But we don't care about the game taking away control from the player, do we? That's not us.


Forcing the player to make a choice to expend a ressource or find another route, isn't a cutscene and it doesn't take control away from the game now does it? All it does is present you with a choice, for you to act on.

Oh and way to be all passive agressive when all I was commenting on was their lack of reaction to our feedback, not my personal likes or dislikes about the game ;)

Bluey71
19th Sep 2010, 20:33
A developer on another game I follow said a couple months back that the sort of community feedback they listen to is the stuff that is in line with the creative direction of their game.

How fortunate for them. Heads stuck in the sand syndrome anyone?


No, they aren't going to listen to a vocal minority when designing major gameplay aspects

You should have been here from the beginning. Vocal minority is not what I would use to describe the number of people unhappy with the way this game was heading.


Why do people assume that the only "community" they should listen to are the hardcore DX fanboys?
Because they told us they were going to stay true to what a DX game is about. They told us they had done their research, that they knew what it was that made a true DX game. So, who else in the world do you think that was all aimed for if not the hard core fan base?

See, your arguments don't really stack up do they. Stop trying to defend lazy game design.

IOOI
19th Sep 2010, 20:39
To change a cutscene where all you have to do is press one button and go into "easy-mode", allowing the game to do your hacking/lockpicking/multitooling for you like a spoiled little mentally-challenged child?

But we don't care about the game taking away control from the player, do we? That's not us.

They could've made lockpicking similar to Fallout's 3 system. And hacking could be implemented as is in HR. That would give control to the player again and there would be some variety and give credibility to the world. That would be some good change.

A designer doesn't have to apply KISS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle) in everything he does especially in a game where there should be some depth and variety to the gameworld/environment.

JCpies
19th Sep 2010, 20:39
Why do people assume that the only "community" they should listen to are the hardcore DX fanboys?

I'm here to kick yo' ass and take some zyme. And I'm all outta zyme.

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 20:39
When most of those things surfaced, specifically HR and inability to play in 1st person, it wasn't a vocal minority complaining, it was a majority.

A majority of who? The majority of a small forum community? Certainly not the majority of people in general who would consider buying this game.


It's their own right to do with their game as they please, I just don't get how people say they listened to the community, when all of the earlier community feedback was on centered aspects they did nothing about.

You're right, we don't know for certain that they listened to the community, but we also don't know that they haven't. That major game redesigns weren't done based on what a couple dozen people on this forum said doesn't tell us anything. No developer allows their community that much input into development.


Because they told us they were going to stay true to what a DX game is about. They told us they had done their research, that they knew what it was that made a true DX game. So, who else in the world do you think that was all aimed for if not the hard core fan base?

And what makes a true DX game? I loved Deus Ex, and the stuff that mattered to me about the game, the stuff I'd define as being THE key parts of Deus Ex, seem to be alive and well in DXHR, from what we've seen anyway.

JCpies
19th Sep 2010, 20:43
A majority of who? The majority of a small forum community? Certainly not the majority of people in general who would consider buying this game.

That's what you don't understand, we're talking about 'vocal' majority and minority. This forum is meant to be the community feeding back to the developers (if it were true), it's not like they would frantically search the internet for random forums and listen to them, would they?

Mindmute
19th Sep 2010, 20:45
A majority of who? The majority of a small forum community? Certainly not the majority of people in general who would consider buying this game.

In the beggining of the dev cycle, they said specifically they were tuned in to this community and that even some members of the team read the forum "on a daily basis".

I'm not over-estimating us, I'm going based on what *they* said.




You're right, we don't know for certain that they listened to the community, but we also don't know that they haven't. That major game redesigns weren't done based on what a couple dozen people on this forum said doesn't tell us anything. No developer allows their community that much input into development.

I understand what you're saying, but what I listed was nearly ALL of the feedback. There was no other solid info about the game or it's mechanics at the start of it all when Dugas said they were listening, other than that, Adam's voice actor and the overall aesthetics. What else is there to listen to if nothing else was talked about, fella?

ZakKa89
19th Sep 2010, 20:47
What I like about this interview is that the guy seems confident in his decisions even if they are 'controversial'.

IOOI
19th Sep 2010, 20:50
Well, he's a professional after all (and we are fans). Doesn't mean we have to agree with his choices.

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 21:02
I understand what you're saying, but what I listed was nearly ALL of the feedback. There was no other solid info about the game or it's mechanics at the start of it all when Dugas said they were listening, other than that, Adam's voice actor and the overall aesthetics. What else is there to listen to if nothing else was talked about, fella?

That's actually a great point. I hadn't thought of that. So maybe if the community had made less drastic requests for major gameplay reworks, instead of harping on the same three or four things for months, they would feel like the developers listened to them more.

Mindmute
19th Sep 2010, 21:03
That's actually a great point. I hadn't thought of that. So maybe if the community had made less drastic requests for major gameplay reworks, instead of harping on the same three or four things for months, they would feel like the developers listened to them more.

Except, if they focused on it, it's because they deemed it important enough. It works both ways, fella.

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 21:13
Except, if they focused on it, it's because they deemed it important enough. It works both ways, fella.

Yep. But regardless of how important they think something is, if it's in direct contrast to what the developers want to do, it isn't going to happen.

People have to be realistic, and choose the battles they can win.

Anasumtj
19th Sep 2010, 21:15
To change a cutscene where all you have to do is press one button and go into "easy-mode", allowing the game to do your hacking/lockpicking/multitooling for you like a spoiled little mentally-challenged child?

But we don't care about the game taking away control from the player, do we? That's not us.

Good job. Your "rebuttal" was complete nonsense in response to his point.

What do cutscenes and automation have to do with the simple fact that three elements of resource management and strategy have been diluted into one minigame?

jtr7
19th Sep 2010, 21:17
People have to be realistic, and choose the battles they can win.

No. We can proclaim our displeasure with anything, especially the things we don't have a chance to change, if only to let them know they are excluding people who are only interested in their game because of the original and a tease of something more like it.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 21:18
Really? Then just for the sake of me finally understanding where you're coming from with that before I go back into lurking, please answer this for me:
When did they exactly listen to the fans?
*snip*
Not really sure why you are asking me for the specific details, I wouldn't know, would I.
All I did there was to quote what Dugas actually said.



I like you as a moderator MyImmortal and you seem like a very nice person aswell and I can even understand if you like or don't mind these things, but they were *the* issues the community pointed out and absolutely nothing was done about them.
Thank you for liking me as a moderator. BUT even so, I fail to see what this has got to do with anything...
Dugas answered that question. He said they listened but didn't feel they had to listen to everything. That's it.


Even if you feel you should defend EM for doing something you like, you'll have to admit that they just never cared about what the community had to say (we were never their main demographic, as seen by the difference between the old members who already left and these ones who recently joined) even back then, despite what Dugas might say.
My opinion has nothing to do with feeling like I should defend EM, lol. I post my opinions here as a person, not a moderator. What I do and post as a moderator is completely separate.
What the hell would I want to defend them from anyway?

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 21:19
No. We can proclaim our displeasure with anything, especially the things we don't have a chance to change, if only to let them know they are excluding people who are only interested in their game because of the original and a tease of something more like it.

Never said you couldn't. As long as you're aware that you're not likely to change anything, then more power to you. It's the people who are shocked that their requests for major game changes fell on deaf ears who need to learn how the industry works.

Reasonable people like yourself probably never had any such illusions.

Mindmute
19th Sep 2010, 21:21
Reasonable people like yourself probably never had any such illusions.

Honestly, neither did I and it's in the light of it that I don't understand exactly what they listened to.

pringlepower
19th Sep 2010, 21:22
Good job. Your "rebuttal" was complete nonsense in response to his point.

What do cutscenes and automation have to do with the simple fact that three elements of resource management and strategy have been diluted into one minigame?

Im a fan of making no sense :)

It's simple really. The complex actions of lockpicking, computer hacking and manipulating electronic devices were reduced to a simple mouse click. An "easy button" if you will. Click your mouse and watch JC jiggle a lockpick in front of a door. No player input, no skill required, just click your mouse. 100% effectiveness.

But Pringle, you say, what of the resource management? Well there's always computer hacking. Just click thy mouse and let the ICE breaker do all the work, no resources. And better yet, be completely removed from the game, as nearby terrorists let you take your sweet time.

Mindmute
19th Sep 2010, 21:28
But Pringle, you say, what of the resource management? Well there's always computer hacking. Just click thy mouse and let the ICE breaker do all the work, no resources. And better yet, be completely removed from the game, as nearby terrorists let you take your sweet time.

You mean something that unless upgraded substancially gave you no control over turrets and very little time to actually read the email you want without it being a nuissance? Nope, no investment required there.

And how is that justification anyway to merge the three systems into one, making the gameplay more generic and bland? Why not just tweak it? Why not give it three different systems and three different skillsets and augmentations? Why not let the player have to make a choice?



Christ, you keep getting hung the arguement "DX wasn't perfect here, why not axe the whole thing and replace it with something that most people have found to be just as bad in comparison?" (in fact, as far as I recall it was your arguement supporting the takedowns). Why not improve on the earlier system?

Tecman
19th Sep 2010, 21:33
But Pringle, you say, what of the resource management? Well there's always computer hacking. Just click thy mouse and let the ICE breaker do all the work, no resources. And better yet, be completely removed from the game, as nearby terrorists let you take your sweet time.
Honestly, this is why I like Biomod - you have to actually be sure you're safe before you start hacking, because enemies will kill you while doing it since computers no longer make the player invisible when using them. :)

But honestly, I'm torn on the issue. Potentially annoying but potentially immersive Mini-game, or strategic resource juggling... Which would I prefer in the case of handling locks / computers? I'm not quite sure to be completely honest. It will probably depend on the implementation of the thing.

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 21:33
Honestly, neither did I and it's in the light of it that I don't understand exactly what they listened to.

Yeah we may never know. :/


Im a fan of making no sense :)

It's simple really. The complex actions of lockpicking, computer hacking and manipulating electronic devices were reduced to a simple mouse click. An "easy button" if you will. Click your mouse and watch JC jiggle a lockpick in front of a door. No player input, no skill required, just click your mouse. 100% effectiveness.

But Pringle, you say, what of the resource management? Well there's always computer hacking. Just click thy mouse and let the ICE breaker do all the work, no resources. And better yet, be completely removed from the game, as nearby terrorists let you take your sweet time.

Yeah, aside from all the glaring faults you've just mentioned, I never saw the supposedly intelligent resource management required in the original game. I mean, even getting every aug and upgrade canister and on a stealth/non-lethal playthrough, I had piles and piles of lockpicks and multitools in my inventory. And that's with only "Trained" in electronics and lockpicking. Going any higher was an even bigger waste.

Psychomorph
19th Sep 2010, 21:34
Many people here simply overestimate the purpose of this forum and the range of influence of this community. Accept that the devs are just doing their job, not more not less.
Yes, they are listening, but the only ideas that are of any use for the devs are ideas that do not conflict with the development course that the devs already took years ago, presented in a polite manner. The hate and flaming wont change anything, not even if it is presented in a polite manner.

So just calm down and enjoy the pics.

Mindmute
19th Sep 2010, 21:42
Yeah, aside from all the glaring faults you've just mentioned, I never saw the supposedly intelligent resource management required in the original game. I mean, even getting every aug and upgrade canister and on a stealth/non-lethal playthrough, I had piles and piles of lockpicks and multitools in my inventory. And that's with only "Trained" in electronics and lockpicking. Going any higher was an even bigger waste.

Once again, I'd say that falls into the failing of the level-design as far as how scarse those items were rather than a failing of the whole system. And even then, condensing three possible skillsets into one doesn't add much to the game, does it?


I thought the same thing about food in Stalker tbh, it'd have improved the experience if it were made harder to obtain.

Bluey71
19th Sep 2010, 21:44
My opinion has nothing to do with feeling like I should defend EM

Well that made me lol.

I think anyone who has been here even for a short time realizes you consider yourself to be the yin to everyones yang when it comes to criticism of this game :rolleyes:

*sigh* your right - myimmortal must have quoted you and my quotes got mixed up.

NKD
19th Sep 2010, 21:51
Well that made me lol.

I think anyone who has been here even for a short time realizes you consider yourself to be the yin to everyones yang when it comes to criticism of this game :rolleyes:

Er what? I never said that. Double check your quotes please.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 21:56
Er what? I never said that. Double check your quotes please.
Perhaps he's confused with me?

I asked:

What the hell would I want to defend them from anyway?

I'm still waiting (patiently) for an answer. :)

Mindmute
19th Sep 2010, 21:57
I'm still waiting (patiently) for an answer. :)

From the future! ;)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 21:58
From the future! ;)

I'm defending EM from the future? :scratch:

Mindmute
19th Sep 2010, 22:00
I'm defending EM from the future? :scratch:

It makes perfect sense ;)

That was a joke... I honestly don't think you're defending anyone from anything, I just think you like what you've seen about the game and have been trying to be just as vocal about it as the ones who didn't like this or that. Simple.

Some people just give you the spotlight for your opinions because of the blue name, I guess.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Sep 2010, 22:02
Oh, edit. Just seen your new edit.
Okay... thanks. Yes, there honestly isn't anything I have seen that I don't like yet. I'm reserving a final judgement for when I've actually played the game, of course. :)

Sotsiak
19th Sep 2010, 23:56
I keep watching this part (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCgVcpcuMAo#t=1m37s) of the video. Again and again and again x10.
Seriously, this is scary stuff.

Pinky_Powers
20th Sep 2010, 00:01
The primary symptom the nay-sayers suffer from is that they take little things like design-philosophy and game trailers, and let these things completely overwrite what they know about the gameplay itself.

The game is stylized in a way that Deus Ex was not. This is old news, and irrelevant. A Renaissance overlay does not change what the two games share. A dark and grim setting. A sense of urgency and conspiracy. A need to uncover; to meet new people and find the truth. The first game had these large levels with secrets and possibilities everywhere... a sort of environmental oppression. And of course, much more besides... (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1415105&postcount=22)
Based on what we've seen and know, Human Revolution is Deus Ex in the depth and soul of the game (with a few regrettable exceptions). Let the EM team have their creative fun with the superficial aspects of the game.

As I've seen it, a perfect Deus Ex game, in complexity, subtly and so forth, would be the first Deus Ex... so let's give it a 10. Here's how I see how things stack up so far:
Deus Ex = 10.
Invisible War = 6 (lets not be morons and suggest it's lower than that.)
Human Revolution = 8.5-9.

Clearly, this is highly subjective, but not without some notion of propriety. Let me explain.

Combining Multi-Tools and Lock picks into Hacking weakens it, sure. But then adding a complexity to the hacking swings it back around some.
Abandoning IW's Uni-ammo was great, and allowing certain ammo-upgrades makes it "almost" on level with multiple-ammo types for every weapon (or almost every weapon).
Combining Skill-Points with Augs was horrid in IW. But with the vast array of augs in HR, most of that is represented quite well... but not 100%. And when you take into account the upgrade tree for all aug-types, the complexity raises up even more.
Regenerating Health... not as good a health packs. But with a slow regen-time, it can make the game more challenging than DX ever was. We shall have to see how this is balanced in the end.
No Limb-Damage is just a bloody shame, period.
A good RPG conversation system is present, and with the addition of the Social Combat, this is quite simply a layer of depth that was not seen in either of the previous games.
A cover system is a huge plus for stealth gameplay. But making it so shadows holds no sway over stealth is dumb. But since shadows don't make sense in all situations, and a cover system does, this is still a point for the new guy.
Third-person is the major gripe nearly everyone has with the game, but it's not indicative of complexity or a lack-thereof. It's a perspective switch, and a regrettable one. But it works quite well, all-in-all.
Takedowns... this is a complicated one. It makes a lot more sense to have takedowns than to not have them. It makes sense to be able to sneak up to someone and grab them and stab them or knock them out in a fashion befitting a trained agent. The third-person element makes it feel like a movie, though. And the longer they are, the more the feeling grows. This argument has no end. So I'm exempting this from the complexity meter as well.

The pseudo-math boils down to Human Revolution indeed being less complex than Deus Ex... but only by a very, very little bit. And to compare it to Invisible War is an insincere fallacy.

IOOI
20th Sep 2010, 01:18
The primary symptom the nay-sayers suffer from is that they take little things like design-philosophy and game trailers, and let these things completely overwrite what they know about the gameplay itself.

How the hell can design-philosophy be a little thing. :rolleyes:

It's your opinion but you do know that there are some people looking for specific "experiences" and that they are expecting an evolution from these. If it wasn't for that why the hell would those people follow a game series?


Let the EM team have their creative fun with the superficial aspects of the game.

I don't know what you mean with this. No one has stopped them and HR is the proof.


As I've seen it, a perfect Deus Ex game, in complexity, subtly and so forth, would be the first Deus Ex... so let's give it a 10. Here's how I see how things stack up so far:
Deus Ex = 10.
Invisible War = 6 (lets not be morons and suggest it's lower than that.)
Human Revolution = 8.5-9.

Clearly, this is highly subjective, but not without some notion of propriety. Let me explain.

Combining Multi-Tools and Lock picks into Hacking weakens it, sure. But then adding a complexity to the hacking swings it back around some.
Abandoning IW's Uni-ammo was great, and allowing certain ammo-upgrades makes it "almost" on level with multiple-ammo types for every weapon (or almost every weapon).
Combining Skill-Points with Augs was horrid in IW. But with the vast array of augs in HR, most of that is represented quite well... but not 100%. And when you take into account the upgrade tree for all aug-types, the complexity raises up even more.
Regenerating Health... not as good a health packs. But with a slow regen-time, it can make the game more challenging than DX ever was. We shall have to see how this is balanced in the end.
No Limb-Damage is just a bloody shame, period.
A good RPG conversation system is present, and with the addition of the Social Combat, this is quite simply a layer of depth that was not seen in either of the previous games.
A cover system is a huge plus for stealth gameplay. But making it so shadows holds no sway over stealth is dumb. But since shadows don't make sense in all situations, and a cover system does, this is still a point for the new guy.
Third-person is the major gripe nearly everyone has with the game, but it's not indicative of complexity or a lack-thereof. It's a perspective switch, and a regrettable one. But it works quite well, all-in-all.
Takedowns... this is a complicated one. It makes a lot more sense to have takedowns than to not have them. It makes sense to be able to sneak up to someone and grab them and stab them or knock them out in a fashion befitting a trained agent. The third-person element makes it feel like a movie, though. And the longer they are, the more the feeling grows. This argument has no end. So I'm exempting this from the complexity meter as well.

Pinky_Powers trying to shoot all over the place. American style. ;p

I see that you still have some doubts about HR so I don't understand how would you give it a 8.5-9 without playing it.

Dead-Eye
20th Sep 2010, 01:26
I just want to say that, unlike the majority, I do feel like the devs heard some of my ideas in the early stages of this game. I asked that Adam have a trench coat and they gave him one.

It seems to me people here are worried about the game design choices because it supports modern games that don't have lasting value. Deus Ex was an experience with lasting value and people want the same deep, emotional experience form HR. The thing is that we really can't say if Human Revaluation will have lasting value or not, until we play it... or if it's bad read a review about it. Sure the game play is different but that doesn't mean it's not good, it's just different. At this point we really can't change anything. We can only hope that these things don't water down the experience.

And I'm still a little optimistic... hopefully I won't jinx it. I think the key here is how the developers adapt the environment to match the new gameplay. If the environment is more hostile, the NPCs more adaptive, etc. then these factors will balance the game to still be good lasting and valued experience. It's just going to be different.

FrankCSIS
20th Sep 2010, 02:12
there are some people looking for specific "experiences"

I've said it before, to me, a similar experience is the number one crieteria by which a sequel is judged. There is a lot of room left for original inputs and creative liberty in this definition, mainly because an experience, despite what many people claim, is not very subjective. While many of us here have different favourite features, we all enjoyed the overall experience of the original title in a similar manner. Breaking the game down to features is the best way to change the overall experience, and alleniate people whose favourite parts have been excluded.

There is no such thing as core features, because the overall experience does not equal the sum of all of its parts. What is required, in a sequel, is to fully comprehend what generated the original experience, and attempt to keep it intact. Everything else is creative liberty. It's interesting to note here that Vampire Masquerade is seen as the closest thing to what a DX sequel could've been, despite being set in a universe very far from JC's world. That game, with a good cyberpunk story, would've satisfied the toughest IW-chewing crowd.

Pinky_Powers
20th Sep 2010, 02:48
How the hell can design-philosophy be a little thing. :rolleyes:

To the extent that visually it is very different from Deus Ex, and yet you get the same emotions and atmosphere from it. In comparison to that, the renaissance thing is a very "little" thing.

You didn't really read the post did you? You're just replying for the sake of your troll blood, right?


I see that you still have some doubts about HR so I don't understand how would you give it a 8.5-9 without playing it.

I answered that in naked honesty. All that yammering was based only on "what we've seen and know". Based on the information we have "thus far". And I said it was "highly subjective", and yet I still took a lot of effort into explaining my opinion.

And you still ask the stupidest questions you can manage.

WildcatPhoenix
20th Sep 2010, 03:51
And you still ask the stupidest questions you can manage.

And you still manage to come across as a colossal prick every time you post.

Jeez, this thread has the potential to become the All-Time Knockout Flame War. I feel like the two camps of this board have firmly entrenched by this point, and we're all just doomed to sit here and wage the same battles of "1st vs. 3rd person" BS over and over and over and over and over ad infinitum.

Bah. Dugas at least has the stones to admit EM doesn't give a crap about the fanbase. Props for honesty. MAJOR disrespect for no remorse, though...not that it will effect their sales. These trailers have people sold, Deus fans. There is hype. I actually hear people talking about Deus Ex. Yes, those dreaded "casual" gamers we all look down upon.

And they're going to buy a ton of copies.

TrickyVein
20th Sep 2010, 04:14
Kiss and make up, you two.

Pinky_Powers
20th Sep 2010, 06:01
And you still manage to come across as a colossal prick every time you post.

It's always true wisdom to bite at folk like that. If you don't let them know that deliberate idiocy won't be tolerated as a standard operating procedure, then soon there won't be a sober mind left.

You're absolutely right, though. The camps seem to be established and rooted deep. And I've more-or-less accepted this, or so I thought. To be honest, it was really only a few recent comments I've read that started to drive me up a wall. Sentiments that suggest the state of this game is sounding ever worse with every new bit of information.

And nobody bothers to disagree? Seriously? The game looks that bad to you? The new trailer was awful? The screenshots no good? The previews don't hold any interest to you? Everyday the game is looking worse?

You probably want to place me in the camp that says "everything is awesome and everybody who doesn't like third-person is stupid!" But that would not be an accurate representation of my main drive. I just want people to complain about the issues with a modicum of perspective. The number of members who actually do that I can count on half'a hand. And each one of them I've butted heads with on more than one occasion. But they're generally balanced.

This game is NOT designed with the casual gamer in mind. Everyone who says so is wrong. That was quite pretentious of me, I know. But before you replay with "oh yes it was!" just think about it for a moment.
A minimum of two bullets and you're dead. A suite of gameplay systems that comes very, very close to the depth of the original Deus Ex. As I've asked so many times before, take into account all the info we have. There are no games like this on the market. The only game it can honestly be related to is Deus Ex. It's a goddamn complicated game!

I hope its fresh trappings will hook a wide cross-section of Halo, CoD and GoW fans. But it's clearly not for them. Games like this don't exist in their world. If Human Revolution is as challenging as we've heard, many of them will never finish the game. The same way we all know a few gamers who couldn't handle the pace of Deus Ex either. But hopefully... oh please god! There will be enough of this new generation who will fall in love with games of this complexity and start demanding more from the industry.

But that's probably pie in the sky... :(

Oh, and on the subject of perspective and balanced concerns: Dugas did not slap anybody in the face. You're melodramatic whores. What he's said all along is that EM made some gameplay decisions they believed in. He's aware these decisions have incited unrest within the fanbase, but they still, even now, believe in these systems.
The notion that just because someone doesn't bend to your demands on something they feel strongly about, that this is evidence they couldn't care less about your opinions (or worse, that they don't care about the fan-base in general)... this just embarrassingly immature. Get over yourselves! They made some choices, for good or ill. It does not mean they don't love you.

Whatever. If I sound like a mad raccoon, it's because I feel I'm the only one fighting to see this place not fall into some dank den of depression... and it wears on me. All it takes is a little thought, balance and perspective, and you can b1t*h all you want, and it won't destroy the place entirely.

beastrn
20th Sep 2010, 07:47
Ignorance is bliss

Coyotegrey
20th Sep 2010, 08:07
Successful =/= Good =/= Artistically and Creatively Pure.

It's just not good enough to give accountants and bean counters free reign just because "it's your job on the line". That's EXACTLY the thinking that brought us Invisible War.

At PAX I spoke to someone who worked on the game and he or she talked about what it was like, and didn't mention this. I don't know if it was the case or not, of the bean counters dictating the game design, but I'm just saying we don't know for sure, as obvious as the answer may sometimes appear to be.

NKD
20th Sep 2010, 08:07
It's always true wisdom to bite at folk like that. If you don't let them know that deliberate idiocy won't be tolerated as a standard operating procedure, then soon there won't be a sober mind left.

You're absolutely right, though. The camps seem to be established and rooted deep. And I've more-or-less accepted this, or so I thought. To be honest, it was really only a few recent comments I've read that started to drive me up a wall. Sentiments that suggest the state of this game is sounding ever worse with every new bit of information.

I've seen the same trend. It's absolutely maddening. This game won't be perfect, but when I see posts like "I had hope for this game, but then I saw 2 seconds of video with Adam using a rocket propelled vehicle and now I'm sure it's going to be crap!" I just want to pull my hair out.


And nobody bothers to disagree? Seriously? The game looks that bad to you? The new trailer was awful? The screenshots no good? The previews don't hold any interest to you? Everyday the game is looking worse?

I try, I really do, but I just get shouted down by that 4 person DXHR Hate Squad who go from thread to thread spreading their negativity like a bad flu strain. I think you know who I'm talking about.


You probably want to place me in the camp that says "everything is awesome and everybody who doesn't like third-person is stupid!" But that would not be an accurate representation of my main drive. I just want people to complain about the issues with a modicum of perspective. The number of members who actually do that I can count on half'a hand. And each one of them I've butted heads with on more than one occasion. But they're generally balanced.

There are some legitimate complaints to be had, for sure. I can understand people not liking the third-person stuff for example. But then they always frame their complaints in the most ridiculous and infuriating ways possible. Implications that "It won't be Deus Ex if theres any third person!" is not a logical argument. It's an emotional and sentimental one. "I dislike third person mechanics because they are less immersive for me personally." is a logically sound and respectable argument.


This game is NOT designed with the casual gamer in mind. Everyone who says so is wrong. That was quite pretentious of me, I know. But before you replay with "oh yes it was!" just think about it for a moment.
A minimum of two bullets and you're dead. A suite of gameplay systems that comes very, very close to the depth of the original Deus Ex. As I've asked so many times before, take into account all the info we have. There are no games like this on the market. The only game it can honestly be related to is Deus Ex. It's a goddamn complicated game!

It's certainly a lot less casual than most games. Though people don't seem to realize that Deus Ex was very casual-friendly itself. Certainly far more casual than the RPGs of the era. That was its biggest selling point, as a matter of fact. It brought choice and RPG mechanics to the casual crowd when PC RPGs were still steeped in arcane AD&D rulesets. Deus Ex could be a startlingly easy game. Not everyone played on realistic going for uber melee only. Plenty of people derp derp'd their way through the game with pistol headshots and GEP gun blasts, while choosing the cheesiest most stomach-churning macho dialogue lines, and killing every civilian they saw.


I hope its fresh trappings will hook a wide cross-section of Halo, CoD and GoW fans. But it's clearly not for them. Games like this don't exist in their world. If Human Revolution is as challenging as we've heard, many of them will never finish the game. The same way we all know a few gamers who couldn't handle the pace of Deus Ex either. But hopefully... oh please god! There will be enough of this new generation who will fall in love with games of this complexity and start demanding more from the industry.

But that's probably pie in the sky... :(

I agree with you sentiments on that. People calling for developers to only market to a niche set of gamers are ultimately self-destructive. Developers will say "We tried making some concessions for the hardcore crowd without alienating all the casual gamers, but it wasn't enough. They still whined. Forget them, it's not worth our time. We'll just go fully casual!"

It's funny, because a lot of these Deus Ex fanboys were the Quake or Unreal kiddos who wouldn't touch an RPG with a ten foot pole because those were for nerds and losers. They ridiculed those of us who played things like Baldur's Gate, and guffawed at our nerdiness. Then Deus Ex appeared and converted them from their heathen ways.

But now a game attempting to do the same thing is just unspeakable. Oh how the tables have turned.


Oh, and on the subject of perspective and balanced concerns: Dugas did not slap anybody in the face. You're melodramatic whores. What he's said all along is that EM made some gameplay decisions they believed in. He's aware these decisions have incited unrest within the fanbase, but they still, even now, believe in these systems.
The notion that just because someone doesn't bend to your demands on something they feel strongly about, that this is evidence they couldn't care less about your opinions (or worse, that they don't care about the fan-base in general)... this just embarrassingly immature. Get over yourselves! They made some choices, for good or ill. It does not mean they don't love you.

Correct. Listening doesn't imply that they are doing to do everything you tell them. At the end of the day they heard what people had to say, considered whether they felt it was good for the game, and decided that it wasn't. It's part of every day life having your opinion considered but ultimately put aside. It's pretty immature to call the developers liars when they never made any promises to change anything.


Whatever. If I sound like a mad raccoon, it's because I feel I'm the only one fighting to see this place not fall into some dank den of depression... and it wears on me. All it takes is a little thought, balance and perspective, and you can b1t*h all you want, and it won't destroy the place entirely.

If people would just use a little logic and try to stay positive once in a while, this wouldn't be a forum with "twice the scum in half the space". But I think that's asking a bit much.


At PAX I spoke to someone who worked on the game and he or she talked about what it was like, and didn't mention this. I don't know if it was the case or not, of the bean counters dictating the game design, but I'm just saying we don't know for sure, as obvious as the answer may sometimes appear to be.

Yeah. People fail to realize that it isn't always a beancounter keeping a brother down. Sometimes developers just don't agree with them on what makes a good game. It's easier for them to blame it on greed or money or whatever, because they can argue against that and get all the people who hate rich corporations to agree with them. They can't really argue against creative license and get the same "Me Too! (http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm)" Crowd.

Coyotegrey
20th Sep 2010, 08:17
Hey hey HEY! Let's not call individuals out and be mean. That makes me a sad coyote. :(

Edit: Especially while derailing a thread. Keep it classy.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
20th Sep 2010, 09:04
Bah. Dugas at least has the stones to admit EM doesn't give a crap about the fanbase. Props for honesty. MAJOR disrespect for no remorse, though...not that it will effect their sales. These trailers have people sold, Deus fans. There is hype. I actually hear people talking about Deus Ex. Yes, those dreaded "casual" gamers we all look down upon.

No props for you as far as integrity goes. Do you think you could at least keep this real. Dugas never said he didn't give a crap about the fanbase. The way you word that is unfair and contentious.
He explained that they did listen, just that they felt they didn't need to listen to everything. They have continued with their vision and made the game.

Irate_Iguana
20th Sep 2010, 10:22
The primary symptom the nay-sayers suffer from is that they take little things like design-philosophy and game trailers, and let these things completely overwrite what they know about the gameplay itself.

What we know about the gameplay is what those "naysayers" don't like. That has nothing to do with idiocy spewed by Dugas (Deus Ex was kinda slow and some of his other interview gold) or shiny happy action trailers. There are a lot of fundamental problems with this game for some people. These problems have been explained in quite a lot of threads. Many of the people who had problems with certain elements no longer feel the need to rehash them all again. The people who absolutely love this game almost never take the time to explain why they love what the others hate.



Combining Multi-Tools and Lock picks into Hacking weakens it, sure. But then adding a complexity to the hacking swings it back around some.

They made a minigame out of it. I have yet to see a single minigame that didn't get completely trivial or boring after an hour of play. The repetition of the game forces players to adapt quickly or to not bother with the game. Further more, while Dugas and some press keep touting this minigame as complex, there have also been reporters that called it simplistic. We'll see about this.



Abandoning IW's Uni-ammo was great, and allowing certain ammo-upgrades makes it "almost" on level with multiple-ammo types for every weapon (or almost every weapon).

Not abandoning uni-ammo would have been stupid. Absolutely nobody loved that. They would have shot themselves in the foot if they kept it. The ammo types are now part of the weapon upgrade system. How that works and how many types there are is anybodies guess. Information would be nice, but you know just as well as anybody else that information is not something that EM shares.



Combining Skill-Points with Augs was horrid in IW. But with the vast array of augs in HR, most of that is represented quite well... but not 100%. And when you take into account the upgrade tree for all aug-types, the complexity raises up even more.

They've thrown numbers around for the amount of augs. We've already seen some very stupid augs. Although the potential is there to have an ingenious system that manages to eclipse the original in complexity all we have at this point in time are PR statements. Statements made by the same person who thought that DX was kinda slow. Fact of the matter is that skills have been removed and so granularity has been reduced. Not something that I'm completely against, but it is hard to say that the new system is somehow more complex.



Regenerating Health... not as good a health packs. But with a slow regen-time, it can make the game more challenging than DX ever was. We shall have to see how this is balanced in the end.

We've been over this countless times before and you still cling to the hope that the regen will somehow be better than a scarce resource system. The fact of the matter is that waiting for a little while will heal all your damage. Even with a slow regen time you are never going to be more than a wait away from full health. Either you die in this battle or you are golden.



A good RPG conversation system is present, and with the addition of the Social Combat, this is quite simply a layer of depth that was not seen in either of the previous games.

This is the only area of the game I am exited about at this point in time. They should have put this type of work into each and every facet of the game. They took something that didn't work in DX and made it much better. I can see this becoming a very interesting section of gameplay, depending on available augs and differing personality types among the NPC's. They should have done this for the other systems.



A cover system is a huge plus for stealth gameplay. But making it so shadows holds no sway over stealth is dumb. But since shadows don't make sense in all situations, and a cover system does, this is still a point for the new guy.

The original already worked with a LoS system. In addition to that it also had shadow stealth. All they've done is made the cover sticky, removed a gameplay element and made it so that Adam can see everything while the NPC's can't see him. Great job. You managed to make stealth easier. A perfect example of this is in the gameplay demo. Adam just hugs a wall and waits for Mr. Happy Guard to turn around and he can sneak up to him. No need to concentrate on audio cues or risk exposing yourself. Just take advantage of the 3rd person camera.



Third-person is the major gripe nearly everyone has with the game, but it's not indicative of complexity or a lack-thereof. It's a perspective switch, and a regrettable one. But it works quite well, all-in-all.

How do you know it works quite well? I found it to be incredibly annoying in the few sections of gameplay we have seen. And I'm not just talking about the fact that you can suddenly see enormous portions of the level. The switching in and of itself in all instances annoyed the crap out of me. Snapping to and from Adam really jarred the experience for me.



Takedowns... this is a complicated one. It makes a lot more sense to have takedowns than to not have them.

They've taken out melee weapons completely so now you are relying on this "cinematic experience". They've reduced the skill in taking out multiple guards to just being able to get close to them. They've even said so in various interviews. Adam has no problem disabling two guards at the same time without ever being in danger. There is now no difference between a lone guard or a bunch of them. Sneak up, press button and receive knocked out guards. The melee system has been reduced in complexity. People have brought up AvP and Riddick as games where this sort of thing was done well, but since I haven't played them I can't comment on it.



If people would just use a little logic and try to stay positive once in a while, this wouldn't be a forum with "twice the scum in half the space". But I think that's asking a bit much.

People are using logical and have been for quite a long time now. Back when we knew nothing about the game people made an awful lot of predictions based on vague screenshots and statements by the devs in interviews. A lot of those have come true. You might not agree with what some say, but that doesn't mean that it is complete rubbish.

And just so you know I'm not talking about the more ridiculous statements. People that shout they will not buy the game with a lot of hyperbole attached. Lord knows that both sides of the HR-fence are riddled with that type of behavior.

beastrn
20th Sep 2010, 11:17
Like Gon said in Hunter X Hunter: You can't have a logical opinion if you're just following the crowd

NKD I agree that we could all be a bit more positive - but in order for that to happen people would need to abandon logic, not use it.

lithos
20th Sep 2010, 11:36
I love how judging the game based on what EM have released is a bad thing - but only if you're judging it negatively.

I mean, if we're not meant to form opinions on what's released, why release it?

Kvltism
20th Sep 2010, 11:40
It's interesting to note here that Vampire Masquerade is seen as the closest thing to what a DX sequel could've been, despite being set in a universe very far from JC's world.
Bloodlines featured many of the elements the hardcore fans on this forum would consider as being integral to creating the "Deus Ex experience." That doesn't include health regen, hahaha, but it was slow enough to not make combat terribly easy. It's a much better gaming experience than Invisible War, that's for sure.

I'm not too much of a pessimist re: Human Revolution, but what I've seen so far points to a game that will probably rate around the 8-8.5 mark. Disappointing, really. It's as if EM are content to aim for a solid product, as opposed to one people will still be talking about a decade later.

WildcatPhoenix
20th Sep 2010, 14:06
No props for you as far as integrity goes. Do you think you could at least keep this real. Dugas never said he didn't give a crap about the fanbase. The way you word that is unfair and contentious.
He explained that they did listen, just that they felt they didn't need to listen to everything. They have continued with their vision and made the game.

Really? Is it a prerequisite of this board to question someone's integrity/intelligence every time you have a difference of opinion? Getting tired of this nonsense, especially from moderators. :hmm:

I take offense to Dugas' attitude throughout this entire process. When asked about the potential for more game footage Dugas replies, "You were at Gamescom, yes? And you still want more? BWAHAHAHAHAHAA!"

Maniacal laughter aside (and no hyperbole here, the dude has a scary laugh!), I think it's downright insulting he would think a mere 2-5 seconds of gameplay footage should satisfy us. Or that the interviewer is somehow being demanding or ridiculous by asking for more.

As for the fanbase, read what I wrote. I didn't say "EM didn't listen to us! Waaaaaaa!" I said they don't care. There is a difference.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
20th Sep 2010, 14:11
Really? Is it a prerequisite of this board to question someone's integrity/intelligence every time you have a difference of opinion? Getting tired of this nonsense, especially from moderators. :hmm:
I didn't question.
And when I post on here my opinions, they are not as a moderator. What I do as a mod is related to the ToU of this forum. ALL my other posts are me.


I take offense to Dugas' attitude throughout this entire process. When asked about the potential for more game footage Dugas replies, "You were at Gamescom, yes? And you still want more? BWAHAHAHAHAHAA!"

Maniacal laughter aside (and no hyperbole here, the dude has a scary laugh!), I think it's downright insulting he would think a mere 2-5 seconds of gameplay footage should satisfy us. Or that the interviewer is somehow being demanding or ridiculous by asking for more.

As for the fanbase, read what I wrote. I didn't say "EM didn't listen to us! Waaaaaaa!" I said they don't care. There is a difference.
You are free to take offense; no problems there. But if you quote someone, you should quote what they say, not your own interpretation of what they said. It's called playing fair.
Where did he ever say he doesn't give a crap about anyone. ???

I love Dugas's laugh. But we all have our own taste, of course.

Anasumtj
20th Sep 2010, 17:14
It's certainly a lot less casual than most games. Though people don't seem to realize that Deus Ex was very casual-friendly itself. Certainly far more casual than the RPGs of the era. That was its biggest selling point, as a matter of fact. It brought choice and RPG mechanics to the casual crowd when PC RPGs were still steeped in arcane AD&D rulesets. Deus Ex could be a startlingly easy game. Not everyone played on realistic going for uber melee only. Plenty of people derp derp'd their way through the game with pistol headshots and GEP gun blasts, while choosing the cheesiest most stomach-churning macho dialogue lines, and killing every civilian they saw.

Just because Deus Ex didn't use a D&D ruleset does not mean it was going out of its way to appeal to a casual crowd or anything of the sort.

That has to be the stupidest thing I've read here this last month.


It's funny, because a lot of these Deus Ex fanboys were the Quake or Unreal kiddos who wouldn't touch an RPG with a ten foot pole because those were for nerds and losers. They ridiculed those of us who played things like Baldur's Gate, and guffawed at our nerdiness. Then Deus Ex appeared and converted them from their heathen ways.

Wait, it all just got stupider.

I like how you've cut to the core of the naysayers' dysfunctions by giving a bull**** assessment of everybody's gaming tastes from over a decade ago before this board ever existed and you even met them.

Shralla
20th Sep 2010, 17:49
I think Dugas' laugh was more of a "Muahahaha they want to see more of my game, eeeeexcellent." Than a "Muahahaha they want to see more of my game but I WON'T LET THEM."

Lady_Of_The_Vine
20th Sep 2010, 18:07
I think Dugas' laugh was more of a "Muahahaha they want to see more of my game, eeeeexcellent." Than a "Muahahaha they want to see more of my game but I WON'T LET THEM."

Exactly. He's got a wicked sense of humour and I love that. :naughty:

IOOI
20th Sep 2010, 18:29
Oh my god! What have I done! :eek:



To the extent that visually it is very different from Deus Ex, and yet you get the same emotions and atmosphere from it. In comparison to that, the renaissance thing is a very "little" thing.

Visually I can agree that the atmosphere is very reminiscent of DX, I never had big problems with the Renaissance theme, I would only be worried if it was overused.

Now, about the rest of the game, I'm not so sure if it follows DX footsteps.

So if you ask me:
Does it remain complex? Yes.
Will it still be challenging to meet the game objectives? Yes.
Do I like the systems required to meet those objectives and how they are implemented (ie: third-person cover)? No. And this is crucial to me in a game.
For instance, if it was admitted to hold the ball in your hands in Soccer would Soccer players/adepts still like it?


You didn't really read the post did you? You're just replying for the sake of your troll blood, right?

I cross-read the last part. >_>
And yes my last sentence was pointless. :o

Irate_Iguana
20th Sep 2010, 18:30
I think Dugas' laugh was more of a "Muahahaha they want to see more of my game, eeeeexcellent." Than a "Muahahaha they want to see more of my game but I WON'T LET THEM."

The latter is way more entertaining. You can imagine him with a top hat, monocle and long handlebar moustache laughing diabolically and plotting a scheme.

Mindmute
20th Sep 2010, 21:50
Another angry post of personal attacks. I must be right on the money.

Honestly, hardly on the money, I think they're just overreacting a bit to your gross generalisation.
Like them, I also played Baldur's Gate before getting into DX.

By the way, I believe the reason why you're saying DX can also be a casual experience is because the game allowed you to play the way you wanted to play it. Despite some faults, it was spot on about letting players create their own experience. If anything that serves to show it's complexity, no?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
20th Sep 2010, 21:55
Honestly, hardly on the money, I think they're just overreacting a bit to your gross generalisation.

NKD was refering to personal attacks, and in this instance he is right on the money.
It has been dealt with too.

Mindmute
20th Sep 2010, 21:56
NKD was refering to personal attacks, and in this instance he is right on the money.
It has been dealt with too.

Alright, I was reading it as if he thought the attacks (not denying they were there, hence the focus on overreacting) justified his point was right. My mistake and my apologies if I'm wrong then, NKD!

NKD
20th Sep 2010, 22:02
Honestly, hardly on the money, I think they're just overreacting a bit to your gross generalisation.
Like them, I also played Baldur's Gate before getting into DX.

As did I. And that's precisely what I was saying. There were a lot of people who played hardcore RPGs who ended up loving DX despite being saddled with the first person shooter baggage. There were also a lot of people brought into the fold despite only having played stuff like Quake and Unreal. This is indisputable fact.

The reason I made the comparison is that you have a group of exclusionary elitists today who seem to have forgotten that there was the same talk about Deus Ex. People were very worried the shooter portion of the game would weaken the game and make it a mindless killfest, and some people were worried the RPG portion would water down the shooter portion and make it reward gaining XP over actual skill.

Both were right to some extent, but that's what made the game appeal to such a broad audience.


By the way, I believe the reason why you're saying DX can also be a casual experience is because the game allowed you to play the way you wanted to play it. Despite some faults, it was spot on about letting players create their own experience. If anything that serves to show it's complexity, no?

Yep. It shows you can find a middle ground that appeals to a wide range of gamers. The saying is that you can't please everyone, but you can certainly aim for somewhere in the middle. People get irrationally upset at this possibility, they want it their way or no way.


NKD was refering to personal attacks, and in this instance he is right on the money.
It has been dealt with too.

Glad to hear it ;)


Alright, I was reading it as if he thought the attacks (not denying they were there, hence the focus on overreacting) justified his point was right. My mistake and my apologies if I'm wrong then, NKD!

No problem, I could have worded my post better, but the trolls got to me, I'll admit it :) I deleted the post anyway, no need to feed 'em.

Mindmute
20th Sep 2010, 22:07
Yep. It shows you can find a middle ground that appeals to a wide range of gamers. The saying is that you can't please everyone, but you can certainly aim for somewhere in the middle. People get irrationally upset at this possibility, they want it their way or no way.

Meh, honestly, I'm going to agree.

However, DX showed it was possible to make an enjoyable game for different types of people without compromising to the trends of the market but it already has a sub-par installment in the series due to compromises towards achieving a bigger target audience. Half the reason why I'm being so critical of some of the features they've announced so far is fear of history repeating itself (it tends to).

Lady_Of_The_Vine
20th Sep 2010, 22:11
No problem, I could have worded my post better, but the trolls got to me, I'll admit it :) I deleted the post anyway, no need to feed 'em.
Fair shout. I've deleted lithos's post too.

NKD
20th Sep 2010, 22:24
Meh, honestly, I'm going to agree.

However, DX showed it was possible to make an enjoyable game for different types of people without compromising to the trends of the market but it already has a sub-par installment in the series due to compromises towards achieving a bigger target audience. Half the reason why I'm being so critical of some of the features they've announced so far is fear of history repeating itself (it tends to).

I can certainly understand skepticism, as the previous disappointing DX game sure gives people a reason for it. As long as it doesn't devolve into paranoia and accusations like it so often does, there's nothing wrong with a little healthy skepticism. Frankly we just don't know enough about the game to know whether it's going to be good or not. I just get frustrated when people act as if the game is a guaranteed failure based tidbits of info.

I guess it's telling that those people still come here and post every day. That's a lot of effort for a game they think is just going to be a failure.

In the end, in response to Jean-Francois Dugas, "You want more right? MUAHAHAHAHA"

Yes I do!

Pinky_Powers
20th Sep 2010, 22:32
Meh, honestly, I'm going to agree.

However, DX showed it was possible to make an enjoyable game for different types of people without compromising to the trends of the market but it already has a sub-par installment in the series due to compromises towards achieving a bigger target audience. Half the reason why I'm being so critical of some of the features they've announced so far is fear of history repeating itself (it tends to).

This is perfectly fair. No one wants another Invisible War. And the fear of it can be maddening.

Ashpolt would say something like Human Revolution will probably be a great game, but do to the changes in the formula, it probably won't be a good Deus Ex game.

This is a reasonable opinion, and one I've never begrudged anybody. It's just not an opinion I agree with. :) For me, all the gameplay-related things I loved about Deus Ex is there in Human Revolution. The final judgment will be determined by story and the quality of the writing. And only playing the actual game will reveal the truth of this.

Mindmute
20th Sep 2010, 22:32
As long as it doesn't devolve into paranoia and accusations like it so often does, there's nothing wrong with a little healthy skepticism.


Just to play devil's advocate, some people have been waiting for two years for solid info and first of it was more in line with what they expected from IW than DX.

Honestly, though, complete paranoia and blind optimism bug me equally I guess, it's just a shame that on top of the extreme views either way some people tend to add cynical comments on top of it...




Ashpolt would say something like Human Revolution will probably be a great game, but do to the changes in the formula, it probably won't be a good Deus Ex game.

Honestly, that's my viewpoint on it aswell, I'm starting to wonder if the game won't be good despite some of the choices rather than because of them.

NKD
20th Sep 2010, 22:40
Just to play devil's advocate, some people have been waiting for two years for solid info and first of it was more in line with what they expected from IW than DX.

Honestly, though, complete paranoia and blind optimism bug me equally I guess, it's just a shame that on top of the extreme views either way some people tend to add cynical comments on top of it...

That's all very true. I guess to me, I see it like this: I could sit around being negative and making myself upset for the next 6-9 months, making the worst-case-scenario interpretation of everything we learn, but what does that get me? If the game is good, then I will have worried myself over nothing. If the game is bad, that's a pretty high price to pay for the ability to say "I told you so."

But if I stay relatively positive and try to give Eidos the benefit of the doubt when possible, the possible endings are a bit more pleasant. If the game is good, then yay. If the game is bad, oh well, it'll be disappointing but hey I didn't spend 6 to 9 months of my life being a perpetual dark raincloud.

I've found that there's rarely a benefit to be a pessimist. Slightly less disappointment when things go wrong due to low expectations, but the pessimist also manufactures disappointment where there doesn't need to be any.

Mindmute
20th Sep 2010, 22:43
^ Meh, frankly the gist of the discussion between you and me has become that we need that damn Demo and soon, hasn't it? ;)

Pinky_Powers
20th Sep 2010, 23:13
^ Meh, frankly the gist of the discussion between you and me has become that we need that damn Demo and soon, hasn't it? ;)

There's also been this curious sexual tension I've been picking up on; a lusty vibe that puts the Fear in my loins.

InGroove2
21st Sep 2010, 01:41
Looks like they did listen to the fans. They just didn't care.

having read this thread prior to watching the interview, and THEN watching it... i have concluded that the "they finally said it" mentality is a crock.

Ninjerk
21st Sep 2010, 08:49
This is perfectly fair. No one wants another Invisible War. And the fear of it can be maddening.

Ashpolt would say something like Human Revolution will probably be a great game, but do to the changes in the formula, it probably won't be a good Deus Ex game.

This is a reasonable opinion, and one I've never begrudged anybody. It's just not an opinion I agree with. :) For me, all the gameplay-related things I loved about Deus Ex is there in Human Revolution. The final judgment will be determined by story and the quality of the writing. And only playing the actual game will reveal the truth of this.

I can't help but be scared that instead of another IW we'll get another Fallout 3. Certain portions of that game were very enjoyable for me, but the overall effort *cue dramatic music,* in my opinion, was lackluster despite the critical and commercial praise that was heaped upon it.

FO3 was not a good Fallout game. I think it wasn't even a good game on its own merits.

Pinky_Powers
21st Sep 2010, 09:26
I can't help but be scared that instead of another IW we'll get another Fallout 3. Certain portions of that game were very enjoyable for me, but the overall effort *cue dramatic music,* in my opinion, was lackluster despite the critical and commercial praise that was heaped upon it.

FO3 was not a good Fallout game. I think it wasn't even a good game on its own merits.

This is a problem that represents the New Bethesda. Oblivion was the same way. It had a ton to offer, but the overall care that went into making it a solid game experience was gone.

As this is Eidos Montréal's first game, only time will tell what sort of company they are, and what qualities they cherish most.

Kvltism
21st Sep 2010, 09:44
I can't help but be scared that instead of another IW we'll get another Fallout 3. Certain portions of that game were very enjoyable for me, but the overall effort *cue dramatic music,* in my opinion, was lackluster despite the critical and commercial praise that was heaped upon it.

FO3 was not a good Fallout game. I think it wasn't even a good game on its own merits.

I like Fallout 3, but not as a Fallout title. From what EM have shown/talked about so far, there's nothing to indicate that Human Revolution will go down as another FO3. It looks like a more worthy successor than IW too. :)

beastrn
21st Sep 2010, 09:55
No it doesn't, lol.

NKD
21st Sep 2010, 10:23
It looks like a more worthy successor than IW too. :)

By far. Though that isn't saying much, to be honest.

Kvltism
21st Sep 2010, 10:35
No it doesn't, lol.

Heh. :S My quibbles re: HR are in line with those raised by other members of the community, (health regen, cutscenes, TPV, no lockpicks/multitools, etc) so would you care to explain how it does not look better than IW?

Kodaemon
21st Sep 2010, 10:38
Don't bother, beastrn is one of the very few genuine haters here.

NKD
21st Sep 2010, 10:39
Don't bother, beastrn is one of the very few genuine haters here.

Funny, I just sent that guy a PM saying the same thing. "Don't bother."

LOL.

Deus_Ex_Machina
21st Sep 2010, 10:51
Don't bother, beastrn is one of the very few genuine haters here.

I wouldn't necessarily call him a hater per se.

I was in the same boat as him once.

A few years ago, I was eagerly anticipating the sequel to my favorite milsim of all time : Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising. I followed EVERY bit of info released, EVERY screenshot, EVERY video and EVERY pod cast. Approx. three years later, when it was finally released, it left me devastated. Not only was it a complete and total sell out, it was a terrible, glitchy mess overall. Needless to say, it burned a hole in my soul the size of an escalade.

beastrn is expressing his anger about what he perceives to be the ruining of a franchise he loves. Time will tell if he was right all along. I certainly hope not, but based on my own experience with games such as OFPDR, anything can happen.

lithos
21st Sep 2010, 10:59
I didn't realise "unconditional love and blind allegiance to EM" was in the Terms of Use for this forum.

Mindmute
21st Sep 2010, 11:01
beastrn is expressing his anger about what he perceives to be the ruining of a franchise he loves. Time will tell if he was right all along. I certainly hope not, but based on my own experience with games such as OFPDR, anything can happen.

Honestly, there's other ways to be discontent about the information we recieved other than being all doom and gloom. That comment he made, for example, is a bit nonsensical, since at this point even the people who are unhappy can largely agree despite it doesn't look like it'll be a proper sucessor to DX it'll very likely be a half-decent game rather than the piece of e-garbage he's trying to paint it to be.

It's like I said a few posts up, either extreme view is a bit silly without a full picture and adding cynicism on top of that just makes it annoying.



And a quick question for lithos:


I didn't realise "unconditional love and blind allegiance to EM" was in the Terms of Use for this forum.

You've probably seen we have the same gripes and complaints regarding the game, would you say I also have unconditional love and blind allegiance to EM just because I don't use every other word as an attack to the game or studio?

Irate_Iguana
21st Sep 2010, 11:19
It's like I said a few posts up, either extreme view is a bit silly without a full picture and adding cynicism on that of that just makes it annoying.

With the way the current games industry is going there are a lot of reasons to be cynical. It does come across as quite harsh and especially when combined with negative remarks. The problem for EM is that they are unknown as a game studio. The Montreal division hasn't released a single game for people to look to. If you take a new game from, for instance, Bethesda, you know what you can expect. You know how they will implement different gameplay elements and you can make an educated guess. EM doesn't have that. What you are left with is comparing things to the rest of the industry as a whole. Although that industry may have been growing up over the years, it has also shifted focus to simplification, handholding and the illusive casual gamer. Without proper information people who are less than positive on the whole are going to assume the worst and compare it to the worst the industry has to offer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is a completely healthy view to have or that all critique will fade like snow before the sun if they release info. I do believe that a lot of the cynicism will change to either acceptance or dismissal based on the information that will be released in the coming months. A lot of topics on this board would change their tone completely if only they would answer all the questions in the "Questions for Eidos Montreal" thread.

beastrn
21st Sep 2010, 11:33
I wouldn't necessarily call him a hater per se.

I was in the same boat as him once.

beastrn is expressing his anger about what he perceives to be the ruining of a franchise he loves. Time will tell if he was right all along. I certainly hope not, but based on my own experience with games such as OFPDR, anything can happen.

Quite.

I've been in this position an uncountable amount of times. Great series announces a sequel > all information looks terrible, but fans stay hopeful > game is released as a dumbed down, easy, totally moronic game that misses the point of every level possible, due to consoles and console audience. Again and again and again.

So these days I don't have time to mince anymore words or pretend that everything's going to be samwise. We know what we know. All it takes is using your head and reading between the lines with a little bit of common sense (the implications of takedowns and cover based combat, for example) to realize what type of game DX:HR will be. I can only assume people that don't share this point of view either don't care or haven't been around long enough to see the effects of this trend. Sam Fisher says hi.

If only it was called "Future Danger Shooting Man" instead, we'd all be happy. Or at least not enraged. You guys would get your plebeian console shooter fix and DX fans would laugh at the poor attempt. :hmm:

inb4 "get a new hobby"

WildcatPhoenix
21st Sep 2010, 13:21
Quite.

I've been in this position an uncountable amount of times. Great series announces a sequel > all information looks terrible, but fans stay hopeful > game is released as a dumbed down, easy, totally moronic game that misses the point of every level possible, due to consoles and console audience. Again and again and again.

So these days I don't have time to mince anymore words or pretend that everything's going to be samwise. We know what we know. All it takes is using your head and reading between the lines with a little bit of common sense (the implications of takedowns and cover based combat, for example) to realize what type of game DX:HR will be. I can only assume people that don't share this point of view either don't care or haven't been around long enough to see the effects of this trend. Sam Fisher says hi.


Exactly. A lot of us are bringing baggage from previous disappointments here. And when you consider that the project lead for one of those major disappointments (Rainbow Six Vegas, I'm looking at you) is deeply involved with this game, it doesn't bode well.

Is it fair for us to judge Eidos Montreal by the standards of franchises "ruined" by Bethesda, Ubisoft, etc? No, probably not. They don't have a bad track record. They don't have a track record. But it's human nature.

As our good buddy George W. said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

NKD
21st Sep 2010, 14:41
Exactly. A lot of us are bringing baggage from previous disappointments here. And when you consider that the project lead for one of those major disappointments (Rainbow Six Vegas, I'm looking at you) is deeply involved with this game, it doesn't bode well.

Is it fair for us to judge Eidos Montreal by the standards of franchises "ruined" by Bethesda, Ubisoft, etc? No, probably not. They don't have a bad track record. They don't have a track record. But it's human nature.

As our good buddy George W. said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Still, most of us avoid constant trolling and actually attempt to make meaningful posts rather than constantly dropping snide one-liners. Having been disappointed is a great reason to not buy the game, or to be skeptical. But it's not really a great excuse for trolling, on the other hand.

Snide one liners and posts comprised entirely of sarcasm are of no use to anyone, and I wish the moderators would crack down on that crap.

This forum is for discussion, not emotional venting of frustrations.

WildcatPhoenix
21st Sep 2010, 16:19
Still, most of us avoid constant trolling and actually attempt to make meaningful posts rather than constantly dropping snide one-liners. Having been disappointed is a great reason to not buy the game, or to be skeptical. But it's not really a great excuse for trolling, on the other hand.

Snide one liners and posts comprised entirely of sarcasm are of no use to anyone, and I wish the moderators would crack down on that crap.

This forum is for discussion, not emotional venting of frustrations.

Sorry, NKD, but I think you're way off base on this one. Beastrn and others have every right to be snide or sarcastic without being labeled a "troll." Flame wars are counter-productive and a huge waste of time, but as long as a poster isn't spamming threads, threatening other people, or posting virus-laden links all over the forums, then he/she should be allowed to voice an opinion.

Even if it doesn't coincide with your own.

JCpies
21st Sep 2010, 17:48
Still, most of us avoid constant trolling and actually attempt to make meaningful posts rather than constantly dropping snide one-liners.

It's a trap!

Dead-Eye
21st Sep 2010, 19:26
People just don't like change. That's why it's so hard to change things.

jtr7
21st Sep 2010, 19:35
"You know what would make bagels better? If they were waffles."

When the change is fundamental and leads to something very different, no matter how many aspects are the same, it's not welcome, unless the original product is crap to begin with. Many changes are welcome, but leave the fundamentals alone.

Tverdyj
21st Sep 2010, 20:00
You know, I read numerous people say "questionable decisions", but so far I haven't seen any explanations of what these are.

What questionable decisions?


Health regen and 3rd person cover/takedowns

not sure if this was covered...

nomotog
21st Sep 2010, 20:00
"You know what would make bagels better? If they were waffles."

When the change is fundamental and leads to something very different, no matter how many aspects are the same, it's not welcome, unless the original product is crap to begin with. Many changes are welcome, but leave the fundamentals alone.


I don't consider that an apt analogy. Maybe if they switched from a FPS to a turn based strategy game, but they just added regenerating health and sticky cover. It's more like eating bagels with cream cheese. Same meal only with some topping changes.

Anasumtj
21st Sep 2010, 20:05
Similarly, I enjoy a good pepperoni pizza. But I probably won't eat one with goat dick on it.

Just to clarify: Third person takedowns, cover system, and health regen are goat dicks.

Tverdyj
21st Sep 2010, 20:05
Some simple facts.

Game is finished
Your either going to buy it or not
Your either positive or not,or perhaps a little reserved.
As far as development goes,no more input from us is needed.
All the bickering in the work won't change a thing at this point.

doesn't mean we can't went and have an impact on future titles, :D

of course, if we HAD more details, we could "whine and bicker" more constructively...

nomotog
21st Sep 2010, 20:17
Similarly, I enjoy a good pepperoni pizza. But I probably won't eat one with goat dick on it.

Just to clarify: Third person takedowns, cover system, and health regen are goat dicks.

You could eat around them. :p

Dead-Eye
21st Sep 2010, 21:16
Similarly, I enjoy a good pepperoni pizza. But I probably won't eat one with goat dick on it.
lol! That's a good one.

WildcatPhoenix
21st Sep 2010, 21:21
I don't consider that an apt analogy. Maybe if they switched from a FPS to a turn based strategy game, but they just added regenerating health and sticky cover. It's more like eating bagels with cream cheese. Same meal only with some topping changes.

So you don't consider switching from a strictly 1st person FPS to a 3rd person cover shooter to be changing the style of game? :scratch:

Sure, there is first person in DXHR. Except when you want to:

-Melee attack someone
-Take cover
-Climb a ladder
-Talk to a critical character
-Advance the story (mainly referring to cutscenes here)

These aren't "topping changes." This is a different meal altogether.

jtr7
21st Sep 2010, 21:34
Deep-fried bagel. There's a bagel in there, but it's fundamentally changed and little of its pre-fried form is accessible to the senses.

If the 3rd-person "player-reward" cannot be switched off, and if the game-world pauses for the animation, or the game-world continues to advance while the animation plays out, then it's like having the bagel slapped out of the hand while trying to take a bite. Excess toppings can usually be scraped off if they are just too much, but if the bagel itself is immersed in liquid...the overwhelming change cannot be undone or ignored, and it excludes the faithful and the loyal. Also, acceptance of undesired and exclusionary change is a bad habit no one should be encouraged to develop and nurture. It's also very contagious. Games like Deus Ex provide a platform for good challenging change across the industry, not a platform for rolling over and conforming.

nomotog
21st Sep 2010, 21:36
So you don't consider switching from a strictly 1st person FPS to a 3rd person cover shooter to be changing the style of game? :scratch:

Sure, there is first person in DXHR. Except when you want to:

-Melee attack someone
-Take cover
-Climb a ladder
-Talk to a critical character
-Advance the story (mainly referring to cutscenes here)

These aren't "topping changes." This is a different meal altogether.

Not that big of a change. Really it's not. A big change would be something like removing the stealth. And it's not all in 3d. To go back to food. It's still a bagel, but now they have put raisins on top of the creme cheese. It's not even a raisin bagel, just a bagel with raisins on it. You don't even have to eat all the raisins.


The bagel is the fighty/hidy/hacky/talky gameplay, The cream cheese is regenerating health, The raisins are third person segments.

If you want to see a game that is going from bagel to waffle just take a look at XCOM.

Dead-Eye
21st Sep 2010, 21:46
I'm seeing more of a deep fried bagel here, as someone else mentioned. Deep frying is Americas past time. Make everything bigger, more fattening and then deep fry it. It's in no way shape or form a good thing, seeing as bagels are healthy and deep fried anything is unhealthy, but it attracts more customers so the shop owner decided he was going to sell only deep fried bagels from here on out.

The people that went to the restaurant for regular bagels (you know the kind of people who like food that is actually good for them) are alienated in favor of fater, stupider customers that probably buy more and care less.

beastrn
21st Sep 2010, 22:24
I don't consider that an apt analogy. Maybe if they switched from a FPS to a turn based strategy game, but they just added regenerating health and sticky cover. It's more like eating bagels with cream cheese. Same meal only with some topping changes.

Your analogy is terrible.

A truly apt one would be; It's taking the filling out of a bagel and replacing it with rotten wasabi.

Deep.

IOOI
22nd Sep 2010, 00:13
I've seen the same trend. It's absolutely maddening. This game won't be perfect, but when I see posts like "I had hope for this game, but then I saw 2 seconds of video with Adam using a rocket propelled vehicle and now I'm sure it's going to be crap!" I just want to pull my hair out.

Just to make something clear, I don't think it's going to be crap. I actually think it will be a good game, I'm not so sure about a good sequel or, to word it correctly, a good *prequel* - I don't even know if anything that's in DX bible still holds true in HR.

I always tried to state what I don't like about the game or how I would like it to be. I even acknowledged, right from the beggining, that EM probably would implement game trending features that have been evolving for the last 10 years, like Third person cover, but I thought they'd follow the "Immersive simulation" philosophy in order to not cast away those who liked what DX1 was trying to achieve.
For instance in the case of Third Person cover and stealth, I thought there would be an Optional TP or FP view (for cover) in order to catter to those who like to be in character and those who like to see the character, but what I've seen so far is a broken system, where you can do somethings both in TP and FP (but without the proper support for FP playstyle, like: Lean Keys or tools to help the player see around corner without going "out of character"/TP; roll/dodge-roll from cover-to-cover in FP) and then you have some where the same logic could be applied but they ended up not doing it (climbing ladders only in TP).


@ Pinky_Powers

I know you're trying to be a bit of a diplomat - and at the same time trying to shoot all over the place like a "mad racoon" with guns (That won't work Pinky! You'll be "maddening" people even more.) pointing out that the basic-gameplay or core is still there and that it should be enough to appease people (Where did I read that before? :scratch: I think I even mentioned it myself! (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1216778&postcount=7)) but it doesn't work for everyone and especially when something you liked about the game or other things that could've made the game stand out from the competition are left out.

rubiomhs
22nd Sep 2010, 00:28
the more cynicism, the better. you can't get let down if your expectations are very low.

jtr7
22nd Sep 2010, 00:31
...And waiting for the price to come down to meet those expectations.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Sep 2010, 01:52
@ Pinky_Powers

I know you're trying to be a bit of a diplomat - and at the same time trying to shoot all over the place like a "mad racoon" with guns (That won't work Pinky! You'll be "maddening" people even more.) pointing out that the basic-gameplay or core is still there and that it should be enough to appease people (Where did I read that before? :scratch: I think I even mentioned it myself! (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1216778&postcount=7)) but it doesn't work for everyone and especially when something you liked about the game or other things that could've made the game stand out from the competition are left out.

I don't have any opinion as to whether or not it will be "enough". It's the disingenuous comments I rail against and I fight for some temperance.

If I have an opinion that differs from you, I will often try and sway you to my way of thinking. But I will call you a f**king liar if I read something like this...


Besides there being augmentations I'm having a hard time finding the similarities [between HR and DX].

Postscript. For the record, I don't think Irate Iguana is a liar, he just gets weirdly exasperated at times. I just have this post (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1415105&postcount=22) bookmarked for easy access in my campaign for balance and perspective. :) I quote my reply a lot because it's finely tuned truth, and why should I rewrite a point I've already made so well?

Hell, I'm going to quote it again, because it's always so needed in this glum place. :D


It's all subjective I'm learning. For me, the Deus Ex experience consisted of a few key elements: Firstly, Cyberpunk universe. Open, multi-path environments. Multi-solution obstacles. A crowded, living world of NPCs that you can talk to. Player driven conversations that carried the story. Lots to do; side quests and exploration of the environments. The ability to truly play as I prefer; talk my way in, shoot my way in, hack my way in, or sneak my way in. Lived-in environments with books, datacubes and emails that flesh out the reality of the world, characters and story. Subtle choices that affect the story. Unknowable alliances of everyone you meet. World travel to real locations. And of course... conspiracies.

I'm sorry if these things had little or no barring on your own Deus Ex experience, but these are what I loved most. And apparently, all of them are lovingly reassembled in Human Revolution. I can understand why people are upset by certain modification to the formula, as I would be too if any number of these things were missing. But for me, my core Deus Ex experience seems to be intact in this prequel; and for that I am pleased.

Only with the final product could all my optimism now come crashing down. But from a purely information standpoint, they've done my favorite game justice here.

IOOI
22nd Sep 2010, 02:27
^ Well, it's my first year following a game development through its discussion board and I'm learning that It's hard to judge people's thoughts, intentions and emotions on the internet. I see you did the same mistake and judged badly Irate_Iguana's post.
We are all learning. ;)

NKD
22nd Sep 2010, 03:57
Hell, I'm going to quote it again, because it's always so needed in this glum place. :D


It's all subjective I'm learning. For me, the Deus Ex experience consisted of a few key elements: Firstly, Cyberpunk universe. Open, multi-path environments. Multi-solution obstacles. A crowded, living world of NPCs that you can talk to. Player driven conversations that carried the story. Lots to do; side quests and exploration of the environments. The ability to truly play as I prefer; talk my way in, shoot my way in, hack my way in, or sneak my way in. Lived-in environments with books, datacubes and emails that flesh out the reality of the world, characters and story. Subtle choices that affect the story. Unknowable alliances of everyone you meet. World travel to real locations. And of course... conspiracies.

I'm sorry if these things had little or no barring on your own Deus Ex experience, but these are what I loved most. And apparently, all of them are lovingly reassembled in Human Revolution. I can understand why people are upset by certain modification to the formula, as I would be too if any number of these things were missing. But for me, my core Deus Ex experience seems to be intact in this prequel; and for that I am pleased.

That's exactly how I feel. I see people saying "this isn't going to be Deus Ex because it has third person" or "this isn't going to be Deus Ex because experience points aren't handled in the same manner" and I feel a bit disappointed because its like they missed so much of the fantastic stuff Deus Ex had, that truly WAS unique to the game.

As you said, it's the cyberpunk setting, open levels with multiple solutions, a lot of people around to talk to or kill, lots of flavor items sitting around. When DX came out, these were things that were almost entirely new. They were the major innovations. These things define Deus Ex for me, not first person ladders, and they haven't released anything so far that makes me doubt whether all that stuff is in there.

Obviously other people are going to have a different idea of what "defines Deus Ex" but I think it's best to define something by what was most unique about it.

This game could still very well disappoint me, but since nothing they've released so far calls those things into question, why should I feel disappointed now?

pringlepower
22nd Sep 2010, 04:00
That's exactly how I feel. I see people saying "this isn't going to be Deus Ex because it has third person" or "this isn't going to be Deus Ex because experience points aren't handled in the same manner" and I feel a bit disappointed because its like they missed so much of the fantastic stuff Deus Ex had, that truly WAS unique to the game.

As you said, it's the cyberpunk setting, open levels with multiple solutions, a lot of people around to talk to or kill, lots of flavor items sitting around. When DX came out, these were things that were almost entirely new. They were the major innovations. These things define Deus Ex for me, not first person ladders, and they haven't released anything so far that makes me doubt whether all that stuff is in there.

Obviously other people are going to have a different idea of what "defines Deus Ex" but I think it's best to define something by what was most unique about it.

This game could still very well disappoint me, but since nothing they've released so far calls those things into question, why should I feel disappointed now?

This isn't going to be Deus Ex because it has no orange soda.

NKD
22nd Sep 2010, 04:01
This isn't going to be Deus Ex because it has no orange soda.

BS! There will be orange soda...

If they give me lemon-lime I will be angry.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:t9stfLp6hn6noM:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/hyudol/mechs.jpg&t=1

TrickyVein
22nd Sep 2010, 04:27
^ Well, it's my first year following a game development through its discussion board and I'm learning that It's hard to judge people's thoughts, intentions and emotions on the internet.

There are no social cues to pick up on within a line of text. Often, you find yourself projecting your own emotions into what you read, no? I suppose inane smileys help in that regard.

Let's throw some clever combinations together:

"You are a bad person. :confused:"

"Great job! :("

"I'm so happy today. :mad2:"

"I disagree with your opinion. :cool: :flowers:"

Pinky_Powers
22nd Sep 2010, 04:37
This isn't going to be Deus Ex because it has no orange soda.

That's a fact. :cool:

TrickyVein
22nd Sep 2010, 04:39
It does have johnny walker tho.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Sep 2010, 04:48
I know this is kind-hell silly of me, but I would love to have the control to customize what Adam Jensen smokes. For instance, I hate cigarettes, but I love me some hand-rolled 60-ring cigars. Or maybe some thinner Hemingway Classics, for a more regal setting.

I'm fine with the wiskey though. :)

MaxxQ1
22nd Sep 2010, 04:55
Not that big of a change. Really it's not. A big change would be something like removing the stealth. And it's not all in 3d. To go back to food. It's still a bagel, but now they have put raisins on top of the creme cheese. It's not even a raisin bagel, just a bagel with raisins on it. You don't even have to eat all the raisins.


The bagel is the fighty/hidy/hacky/talky gameplay, The cream cheese is regenerating health, The raisins are third person segments.

If you want to see a game that is going from bagel to waffle just take a look at XCOM.

Interestingly enough, I have a strong dislike of both cream cheese *and* raisins.

Interpret *that* as you will...

pringlepower
22nd Sep 2010, 05:04
I know this is kind-hell silly of me, but I would love to have the control to customize what Adam Jensen smokes. For instance, I hate cigarettes, but I love me some hand-rolled 60-ring cigars. Or maybe some thinner Hemingway Classics, for a more regal setting.

I'm fine with the wiskey though. :)

Replace the whiskey with a can of orange soda, or I might just not buy this game.

HOW CAN EM DO THIS TO US!?!

NKD
22nd Sep 2010, 06:05
I know this is kind-hell silly of me, but I would love to have the control to customize what Adam Jensen smokes. For instance, I hate cigarettes, but I love me some hand-rolled 60-ring cigars. Or maybe some thinner Hemingway Classics, for a more regal setting.

I'm fine with the wiskey though. :)

Caprican Imperial

http://i56.tinypic.com/35lusg4.jpg

The brand of heroes everywhere:

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/337304_o.gif

WildcatPhoenix
22nd Sep 2010, 13:43
Replace the whiskey with a can of orange soda, or I might just not buy this game.

HOW CAN EM DO THIS TO US!?!

This is the kind of snarky, sarcastic comment we "haters" are constantly criticized for, but if it comes on the side of EM then it's all good.

We have legitimate complaints. Eidos Montreal has not made small little tweaks to the gameplay. They have fundamentally altered the game. I'm sick and tired of posting this damn list, but here it is again, one more time for you True Believers:

1. 3rd person cover system
2. 3rd person dive and roll (honestly, does anyone think real people do this in combat? Dive out from cover, roll into a crouch, and come up firing?)
3. 3rd person ladder climbing
4. 3rd person cinematic takedowns. No melee weapons whatsoever.
5. No multitools/lockpicks.
6. No skill system.
7. 3rd person, non-interactive mid-mission cutscenes.
8. "Multi-kill" augmentations

This is not just "adding raisins," to use this sophomoric bagel analogy we all seem so stuck on. This is the equivalent of going,

"Hmmm, this bagel is delicious and healthy, but not enough people are buying them. What else do people like? Oooh, people like hot dogs! Hot dogs have mustard and relish on them! Let's put mustard and relish on our bagel. What else? Oooh, pizza! Let's put cheese and pepperoni on the bagel too. And some chocolate syrup! Everyone likes chocolate syrup!"

[/terrible analogy]

TrickyVein
22nd Sep 2010, 14:05
That is a pretty bad analogy. I don't think it helped your "cause" at all. Exercise in futility, perhaps?

Kodaemon
22nd Sep 2010, 14:08
By the way, we're forgetting that not only are they adding ingredients that don't fit, they're also removing ingredients from the original recipe or replacing them with the cheapest possible substitutes.

Kvltism
22nd Sep 2010, 14:33
1. 3rd person cover system
2. 3rd person dive and roll (honestly, does anyone think real people do this in combat? Dive out from cover, roll into a crouch, and come up firing?)
3. 3rd person ladder climbing
4. 3rd person cinematic takedowns. No melee weapons whatsoever.
5. No multitools/lockpicks.
6. No skill system.
7. 3rd person, non-interactive mid-mission cutscenes.
8. "Multi-kill" augmentations

All legitimate complaints, though I'd be interested to see how 6 turns out re: the augmentations "replacing" skills. I won't lie, gripe #4 really does disgust me. Sneaking up behind enemies and downing them with a melee weapon has been a key part of many a play-through for me.

avenging_teabag
22nd Sep 2010, 14:34
1. 3rd person cover system
Cosmetics

2. 3rd person dive and roll (honestly, does anyone think real people do this in combat? Dive out from cover, roll into a crouch, and come up firing?)
Cosmetics, and your second point is simply nonsensical. I'm no soldier, but I'm pretty sure people won't do any videogame moves in real battle. Oh, I get it: in real battle you crawl to an utterly oblivious foe (as long as he doesn't look right at you it's all good) and prod him in the ankle with a shocker. Voila!

3. 3rd person ladder climbing
LOL cosmetics

4. 3rd person cinematic takedowns. No melee weapons whatsoever.Adam's swordarms ARE melee weapons. But I kind of agree - it might limit gameplay options.

5. No multitools/lockpicks.
An improvement, as far as I'm concerned. Lockpick/mtools were redundant.

6. No skill system.Agreed. A big mistake on EM's part that has a potential to severely cripple gameplay.

7. 3rd person, non-interactive mid-mission cutscenes.
Depends on implementation. Has potential to get annoying.

8. "Multi-kill" augmentations
Depends on implementation

You didn't mention auto health regen. I am disappoint.

nomotog
22nd Sep 2010, 15:08
This is the kind of snarky, sarcastic comment we "haters" are constantly criticized for, but if it comes on the side of EM then it's all good.

We have legitimate complaints. Eidos Montreal has not made small little tweaks to the gameplay. They have fundamentally altered the game. I'm sick and tired of posting this damn list, but here it is again, one more time for you True Believers:

1. 3rd person cover system
2. 3rd person dive and roll (honestly, does anyone think real people do this in combat? Dive out from cover, roll into a crouch, and come up firing?)
3. 3rd person ladder climbing
4. 3rd person cinematic takedowns. No melee weapons whatsoever.
5. No multitools/lockpicks.
6. No skill system.
7. 3rd person, non-interactive mid-mission cutscenes.
8. "Multi-kill" augmentations

This is not just "adding raisins," to use this sophomoric bagel analogy we all seem so stuck on. This is the equivalent of going,

"Hmmm, this bagel is delicious and healthy, but not enough people are buying them. What else do people like? Oooh, people like hot dogs! Hot dogs have mustard and relish on them! Let's put mustard and relish on our bagel. What else? Oooh, pizza! Let's put cheese and pepperoni on the bagel too. And some chocolate syrup! Everyone likes chocolate syrup!"

[/terrible analogy]

Those are really minor complaints. Except for 6, but there is a skill system.

Why didn't you mention regenerating health?

Ashpolt
22nd Sep 2010, 15:39
That is a pretty bad analogy.

Please explain why WCP's analogy is a bad one? Seemed fine to me.

(Note: I started typing this post, then got loads of calls, and finished it about an hour later. I bet the above question has been answered by the time I post this.)

To NKD: I understand the point you're making, but I disagree. Firstly, I disagree that games - especially games as rich as Deus Ex - can be broken down into their component parts and then stripped to the "core" components. It goes with what The Moderator Formerly Known as Mr. K said ages ago about everything fitting together and all the systems interacting to make a particular experience: we could keep the core and then add new "non-core" components, but the end result will be different experience, despite the same core. And for those of us that are dissatisfied with the way DXHR is going, that's what we're looking for - the same experience - and not, as some would claim, the exact same game. We're not saying keep every single detail the same, but instead acknowledging that if you make a change - such as, for example, third person camera for a whole host of actions - that will not only change that aspect, but will have a knock on effect to other systems, etc etc. Before you know it, one change requires 10 others to get it to work, and those 10 each require further, etc etc - and you end up with something significantly different. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the use of third person in this game will significantly change the gameplay experience. It may be that it's still good in its own right, but it won't be the experience that I loved in Deus Ex, which is the very reason I was excited at the prospect of a sequel in the first place.

Secondly, even if we accept the belief that games can stand on their core values, you've said it yourself: those core values are subjective. People who dislike the direction HR is going are not, as you claim, trolling: we're just expressing our views. OK, there are a couple of trolls: but then, the same can be said for the "positive" camp. By comparison to the rest of the internet, I'd say this community goes out of its way to explain their view in detail, so please don't paint people as trolls just because they have a different opinion to you. I acknowledge that sometimes people may be reluctant to go into too much detail nowadays, but that's mainly because we've had these same discussions time and time and time and time and (so on and so on) over the past few years. Go back even just a few months and you'll find that those you brand as trolls are mostly just people who are tired of repeating the same points time and time again.

Related to this, please stop ridiculously overstating people's negative reactions. People aren't saying "Oh, Adam rides a rocket, this entire game will suck." People are saying - if not in as many words -"Oh, Adam rides a rocket, this further adds to my previously held belief that this game is abandoning gritty realism in favour of a more cinematic and action-led approach, which any number of other games can provide me with." People aren't saying the entire game will suck because of the lack of first-person ladder climbing, they're asking what design philosophy led to this decision, and what consequences that may have for the rest of the game. Any single one of the issues that people have with this game so far would be fine in isolation (OK, admittedly I really dislike the third person...) but they add up to paint a picture not only of the game as is, but of the design philosophy behind it, which in turn affects expectations for things not yet released. In short: yes, if people were saying "OMG Adam rides a rocket therefore this game will suck" then you'd be right to criticise them. But they're not.

Thirdly, I like your idea that the unique properties of a game are the ones it should be defined by, but sadly, again I can't agree that what defines a game is all that's important. By why of analogy: I have a Vauxhall Astra. If asked what defines my car, I'd say value for money, low fuel consumption, low maintenance requirements, plenty of space, etc etc. I wouldn't say "the wheels" because every car has wheels: it's not unique, it doesn't define my car. However, if you took the wheels off my car, I'd be (rightfully) annoyed. It's the same with Deus Ex: the first person perspective may not have defined the game, but it certainly helped (or, at least, the consistency of perspective) helped to create a great sense of immersion which I certainly would classify as a defining factor of Deus Ex.

Finally: all of the things you listed in your post as the things that defined Deus Ex (cyberpunk setting, open levels with multiple solutions, a lot of people around to talk to or kill, lots of flavor items sitting around) - and the inclusion of which you're using as the basis of your current belief that DXHR will be a worthy sequel - were present in Invisible War as well. I don't know about you, but I'm hoping for something better than Invisible War.

Fluffis
22nd Sep 2010, 15:41
Cosmetics, and your second point is simply nonsensical. I'm no soldier, but I'm pretty sure people won't do any videogame moves in real battle. Oh, I get it: in real battle you crawl to an utterly oblivious foe (as long as he doesn't look right at you it's all good) and prod him in the ankle with a shocker. Voila!


How would you do it? Run up to his face, and jab him in the stomach with the prod? The prod is not a combat/battle weapon; it's a stealth weapon.

Besides, everyone should know that the places you hit them with the prod is in the head or the lower back.



Adam's swordarms ARE melee weapons. But I kind of agree - it might limit gameplay options.


As long as they are not used directly (i.e. one button press, one "swing"), they're nothing but... cosmetics. ;) They could just as easily have Adam whip out a Mini Gun (or a silenced pistol or whatever) and mow down the opponents.



An improvement, as far as I'm concerned. Lockpick/mtools were redundant.


So now we're going to see chain-link fences and cellar doors with electronic locks, that you have to hack (even if they are not really protecting anything)...

JCpies
22nd Sep 2010, 15:53
An improvement, as far as I'm concerned. Lockpick/mtools were redundant.


I totally agree with you, it made the game boring. Why would you want to pick or break through (electronic) locks?
You can just throw a LAM in, or you could try and find the code on a noteapad (if no code is available to find, trying to figure out the codes number by number is another simple, albeit long, method of gaining entry).

If you're out of lams, you can always bang your head on the door to knock it down.

Ninjerk
22nd Sep 2010, 16:01
Ash, why even try anymore? If people seriously think that we're climbing ladders in real life and just, you know, really relishing the experience, let them wallow in their ignorance. Anyone worth a damn knew it wasn't about the ladders to begin with.

WildcatPhoenix
22nd Sep 2010, 17:35
Gack! I did forget the regenerating health! *facepalm*

I am seriously going to take issue with the idea that player perspective is a question of "cosmetics." Player perspective governs narration. It is the absolute core of the experience. Think of it in terms of law:

1. You are the person who kills someone (1st person).
2. You are the person being killed (2nd person).
3. You are the person witnessing the murder. (3rd person)

Who is guilty, in this case?

Now let's look at storytelling:

1. "I came down the stairs and nearly tripped over a dead body lying at my feet." (1st person)
2. "You came down the stairs and almost tripped upon a dead body lying at your feet." (2nd person)
3. "Timmy came down the stairs and nearly tripped on the dead body lying at his feet." (3rd person)

Most importantly, the game perspective changes the player's perception of events. Video games exist to simulate either reality or fantasy (take your pick). They are not interactive movies. We should not be forced to sit back and watch someone else do amazing things. WE should be the one doing the amazing things! Why do you think shooter games are so popular? Real combat is terrifying and extremely dangerous, but there is an unparalleled adrenaline rush that goes with it. So we play video games instead, we get as close to combat as possible without actually risking our lives.

Most people in real life will never:

1. Fight in a war
2. Fly a spaceship
3. Drive a Ferrari
4. Score a game-winning touchdown/goal/etc in a sporting championship
5. Travel across the world

and so on. It's the entire POINT of video-gaming, and it's a point that DXHR is missing out on by reducing the medium to yet another series of pretty images that we all just sit back and take in, rather than manipulate, change, influence, control.

JCpies
22nd Sep 2010, 18:13
Also, most people will never get to watch a crazy dude with glasses stuck to his head pierce the lungs of two men with blades coming out of his arms. xD

IOOI
22nd Sep 2010, 18:34
There are no social cues to pick up on within a line of text. Often, you find yourself projecting your own emotions into what you read, no? I suppose inane smileys help in that regard.

Let's throw some clever combinations together:

"You are a bad person. :confused:"

"Great job! :("

"I'm so happy today. :mad2:"

"I disagree with your opinion. :cool: :flowers:"

Hmm, let me edit my previous post in order to make more sense.

Vladimyre
22nd Sep 2010, 18:49
He isn't crazy he's just got some PTSD ;)

IOOI
22nd Sep 2010, 18:55
He has? :scratch:
He's a war veteran?

WildcatPhoenix
22nd Sep 2010, 19:15
Also, most people will never get to watch a crazy dude with glasses stuck to his head pierce the lungs of two men with blades coming out of his arms. xD

No, you will have an opportunity to watch all kinds of things. But you won't get the chance to do them yourself (or at least, experience an illusion that is convincing enough to make you believe you are doing these things).

Kodaemon
22nd Sep 2010, 19:21
Basically:

third person takedown animation (DX:HR) - hey, this action hero dude has some slick moves!

first person takedown animation (Riddick) - OH ****, DID I JUST DO THAT?

jtr7
22nd Sep 2010, 19:30
And people will get to watch the same animation over and over and over and over until it's no longer kewl and kinda embarrassing, with less and less sense of personal accomplishment.

avenging_teabag
22nd Sep 2010, 19:31
How would you do it? Run up to his face, and jab him in the stomach with the prod? The prod is not a combat/battle weapon; it's a stealth weapon.
No, I won't do that, but neither would I do what I described; as for the Phoenix's original example, rl soldiers do use cover as far as I'm aware. Point is, however, that it's extremely silly to judge game mechanics based on real life: games are not life and doing stuff that's not possible in rl is half of the fun. I would dearly like to see any of the resident purists doing the grenade-climbing trick with real explosives. :flowers:



As long as they are not used directly (i.e. one button press, one "swing"), they're nothing but... cosmetics. ;)
Are we positive that they won't work like that (in addition to takedowns)? Or is that some eerie feeling on your part? :) Still I somewhat agree, scrapping of dedicated melee weapons is unfortunate.


So now we're going to see chain-link fences and cellar doors with electronic locks, that you have to hack (even if they are not really protecting anything)...
Ah, real life again. So why don't we have bandages, antibiotics, painkillers, sutures etc. instead of those totally unrealistic insta-heal medkits? Because it's not necessary for game purposes, just like having two different keys for two differnt types of doors only clutters gameplay. Scrape lockpicks altogether, and DE would lose nothing.



I am seriously going to take issue with the idea that player perspective is a question of "cosmetics." Player perspective governs narration. It is the absolute core of the experience.
Nah. It's just your personal taste. Just as a book can be equally absorbing and moving if it's written from the 1st or 3rd person. It's just a technicality, an author's choice, and their impact depends entirely on the author's skill and the reader's mood/habit. Games are no different: Torment, Fallout, Max Payne, Hitman, The Witcher, all of them are just as absorbing to me as Deus Ex is. When I play them, I AM Max, Geralt, The Nameless One. I'm not a witness, there's no disconnect between me and the character. If your experience is so tightly linked with 1st person perspective, well, what a shame really, but don't pass your preference as some kind of universal rule.

Besides, HR is still 90% in 1st person, so this point is not even worth discussing.

AlexOfSpades
22nd Sep 2010, 19:32
I enjoyed when i used my Water arrow -> sneak -> blackjack

or my cloak aug -> sneak -> stun prod


I never asked for kewl animashuns

Kodaemon
22nd Sep 2010, 19:34
@jtr7 That's exactly what happened with Final Fantasy VIII with the summon animations. At first they were pretty much the main attraction, but after some time they became a chore.

You'd think Square learned something since then.

EDIT:
Besides, HR is still 90% in 1st person

AND THIS IS THE MAIN PROBLEM.

As I said before, I would probably be less irked if the game was entirely third person. But no, it just switches perspective back and forth, and I find this jarring, disorienting and needless.

Jerion
22nd Sep 2010, 20:00
You'd think people would find some more productive hobbies.

Just sayin'. ;)

Kodaemon
22nd Sep 2010, 20:04
what

jtr7
22nd Sep 2010, 20:06
Yeah. What's wrong with every single one of us?

Gaming would be fun, but they just don't make games for everybody.

Kodaemon
22nd Sep 2010, 20:11
They're trying to make games that appeal to everybody, but it just doesn't work. I long for niches.

jtr7
22nd Sep 2010, 20:20
Yep. One game for everybody isn't possible. And a game that tries to have something for everybody is full of compromises that make it a mess, and is always superficial.

ALPHATT
22nd Sep 2010, 20:25
"Fans are clingy complaining dip****s who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices the happier you will be for it"

/thread

jtr7
22nd Sep 2010, 20:26
/forum

NKD
22nd Sep 2010, 20:29
"Fans are clingy complaining dip****s who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices the happier you will be for it"

/thread

Who is that quote from? I've heard that before somewhere.

Ninjerk
22nd Sep 2010, 20:39
Nah. It's just your personal taste. Just as a book can be equally absorbing and moving if it's written from the 1st or 3rd person. It's just a technicality, an author's choice, and their impact depends entirely on the author's skill and the reader's mood/habit. Games are no different: Torment, Fallout, Max Payne, Hitman, The Witcher, all of them are just as absorbing to me as Deus Ex is. When I play them, I AM Max, Geralt, The Nameless One. I'm not a witness, there's no disconnect between me and the character. If your experience is so tightly linked with 1st person perspective, well, what a shame really, but don't pass your preference as some kind of universal rule.

Besides, HR is still 90% in 1st person, so this point is not even worth discussing.

Perspective is one of the most important decisions an author makes whether it's a book or a movie. As for it's impact when you're several hours into a game? I can't say.

ALPHATT
22nd Sep 2010, 20:41
Who is that quote from? I've heard that before somewhere.

yahtzee

WildcatPhoenix
22nd Sep 2010, 20:50
No, I won't do that, but neither would I do what I described; as for the Phoenix's original example, rl soldiers do use cover as far as I'm aware. Point is, however, that it's extremely silly to judge game mechanics based on real life: games are not life and doing stuff that's not possible in rl is half of the fun.


Sure, real soldiers use cover. They don't, however, have magical cameras that detach from their heads. You want a 1st/3rd person compromise? Make it an aug, just like the Spy Drone aug from the first game. Give players the ability to see around corners, but require them to install the aug first. I have no problem with this.

I do have a problem with Adam diving out and rolling like a complete jackass. This would make you completely dizzy for a few seconds afterward and ruin any chance of hitting your target. Plus, you look like a fool. It has no place in a Deus Ex game.



Nah. It's just your personal taste. Just as a book can be equally absorbing and moving if it's written from the 1st or 3rd person. It's just a technicality, an author's choice, and their impact depends entirely on the author's skill and the reader's mood/habit. Games are no different: Torment, Fallout, Max Payne, Hitman, The Witcher, all of them are just as absorbing to me as Deus Ex is. When I play them, I AM Max, Geralt, The Nameless One. I'm not a witness, there's no disconnect between me and the character. If your experience is so tightly linked with 1st person perspective, well, what a shame really, but don't pass your preference as some kind of universal rule.


I strongly, strongly disagree. Do you really think it is just a question of "technicality" when it comes to performing an action vs. watching someone perform an action? THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE, and that difference has a name.

It's called "immersion."

Shralla
22nd Sep 2010, 20:51
You're still pushing a button dude. "You're" not performing anything.

WildcatPhoenix
22nd Sep 2010, 20:53
you're still pushing a button dude. "you're" not performing anything.

ffs.


no, you will have an opportunity to watch all kinds of things. But you won't get the chance to do them yourself (or at least, experience an illusion that is convincing enough to make you believe you are doing these things).

NKD
22nd Sep 2010, 20:59
You're still pushing a button dude. "You're" not performing anything.

I think he's just explaining himself poorly. Obviously in both cases you're talking about one button press equaling your guy whacking the enemy.

I think what he means (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here) is that he doesn't like the fact that there's no risk of failure. I.e. you can't miss, or whack the guy on the wrong part of the body.

neoWilks
22nd Sep 2010, 21:25
Ah, real life again. So why don't we have bandages, antibiotics, painkillers, sutures etc. instead of those totally unrealistic insta-heal medkits? Because it's not necessary for game purposes, just like having two different keys for two differnt types of doors only clutters gameplay. Scrape lockpicks altogether, and DE would lose nothing.

First, I think it can be pretty much agreed that a Medkit contains all of those things, it being a kit and all.

Second, I would like more games to have different types of healing items. I really like the bleeding in STALKER that must be stymied by application of bandages, but even that has your standard fare medkits, too. I've never played it, but Call of Cthulu: Dark Corners of the Earth is supposed to have things like splints for broken limbs. This kind of system would be ideal to me: limb specific damage, a variety of medical equipment specifically designed to treat different wounds, wounds that will continue to sap your health if left untreated.

On the subject of lockpicks, hacking, etc. Sure they can all open the same door, if that door happens to have a mechanical lock, electronic lock, and is also hooked up to the resident computer network. But that isn't often the case, and shouldn't be. Instead each method offers different pathways. More secure, modern areas may use electronic locks. Having experience in the electronics skill would then grant you more easy access to areas stocked with computers to hack, classified information, or top of the line equipment. Experience in lockpicking might grant you access to older areas of a facility: The Maintenance rooms/corridors, areas under construction where an electronic lock would be far too expensive to justify.

Pretending that they are the exact same thing is disingenuous. It's analogous to saying we don't need assault rifles because some pistols are fully automatic. Or to take it to the extreme, we only need one weapon because it still kills people.

Fluffis
22nd Sep 2010, 22:01
Are we positive that they won't work like that (in addition to takedowns)? Or is that some eerie feeling on your part? :) Still I somewhat agree, scrapping of dedicated melee weapons is unfortunate.


AFAIK, there will not be any pure melee. Melee = takedowns. Can't remember where I read it, though.



Ah, real life again. So why don't we have bandages, antibiotics, painkillers, sutures etc. instead of those totally unrealistic insta-heal medkits? Because it's not necessary for game purposes, just like having two different keys for two differnt types of doors only clutters gameplay.


Nothing to do with real life. It's just that it would look weird, and you'd be lifted out of character, to a mini game, in order to get into someone's back yard. Try playing Dreamfall if you want to see how strange that feels.

It's also about weird design decisions. By doing this, they are pushing themselves a bit further from the DX continuity (mechanical locks in 2050, but not in 2027).




Scrape lockpicks altogether, and DE would lose nothing.


And then there is this... The point is that all these little details helped to make DX great. Some doors were electronically locked, so you'd use a multi-tool, find a code or blow them to bits (if they weren't INF strength). Other doors were mechanical and you'd pick them, find the key or blow them to bits. It helps make for a varied experience.

Reducing resource management is what was behind the unified ammo and the "multitool opens all" in IW, and those two definitely affected my enjoyment of the gameplay negatively.

All those little things add to the feeling of a complex world.

Mindmute
22nd Sep 2010, 22:10
I think what he means (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here) is that he doesn't like the fact that there's no risk of failure. I.e. you can't miss, or whack the guy on the wrong part of the body.

This. Also it forces you to watch the action in a different perspective, added with no general idea of what the action will be and it becomes closer to like watching the action happening rather than being a cause of it.
It's like you're politely asking the game if it'd mind killing or incapacitating person A and then you watch it do it, rather than pressing a button to perform an action (of your choosing) yourself.

Honestly, the same people keep asking for justifications to the same thing... By now if you haven't understood that this is why we're complaining about take-downs you just aren't reading the explanations or not caring at all.

jtr7
22nd Sep 2010, 22:20
Navigating and using the immediate terrain to one's advantage (not including scripted play or even intended game-mechanics), or making a mistake and having the environment interfere with intended actions, requiring personal skill in hand-coordination, or working with one's weaknesses and finding other advantageous methods for achieving similar ends, all make for a more organic human feel, and sense of personal accomplishment.

AlexOfSpades
22nd Sep 2010, 22:32
NKD, imagine if when you played Mortal Kombat, appeared in the screen:

PRESS A TO USE FATALITY

You see, the game would loose a little bit of its point.

(Forums are amazing. We're debating different subjects in different threads, at the same time. We're like lawyers taking care of cases, many at the same time)

Corpus
22nd Sep 2010, 23:11
NKD, imagine if when you played Mortal Kombat, appeared in the screen:

PRESS A TO USE FATALITY

You see, the game would loose a little bit of its point.

(Forums are amazing. We're debating different subjects in different threads, at the same time. We're like lawyers taking care of cases, many at the same time)

Brutality is the only finisher that requires you to hit the opponent with a complex combo to do it. It wouldn't make a difference with other finishers because either way the outcome is the same.

beastrn
22nd Sep 2010, 23:22
lol Corpus :\



Honestly, the same people keep asking for justifications to the same thing... By now if you haven't understood that this is why we're complaining about take-downs you just aren't reading the explanations or not caring at all.

Yep, exactly.

AlexOfSpades
22nd Sep 2010, 23:23
The metaphore meant that part of the game would lose its meaning. You wont have to match the right distance, press block up and down twice and high punch to do a fatality.

You just gotta press A.

The automatic takedown will be the same, you dont have to approach quietly the enemy while cloaked and aim precisely your Stun in the waistline of that MJ12 commando.

You just gotta press A.

Got what i meant?

Blade_hunter
22nd Sep 2010, 23:39
Well the beatrn's signature says pretty much what the takedowns are ...

NKD
22nd Sep 2010, 23:42
The automatic takedown will be the same, you dont have to approach quietly the enemy while cloaked and aim precisely your Stun in the waistline of that MJ12 commando.

Well to be fair, you still have to get up near the enemy without getting spotted. Depending on level design that could be tricky in some cases. The difference being that once you're there, it's a sure thing.

pringlepower
23rd Sep 2010, 00:07
Well to be fair, you still have to get up near the enemy without getting spotted. Depending on level design that could be tricky in some cases. The difference being that once you're there, it's a sure thing.

You know I was kinda worried about takedowns, cautiously optimistic I guess (and annoying insulting and sarcastic). But I finally got to playing Arkham Asylum and... well if the DXHR takedowns are anything like those, I'll be happy.

Mindmute
23rd Sep 2010, 00:07
Well to be fair, you still have to get up near the enemy without getting spotted. Depending on level design that could be tricky in some cases. The difference being that once you're there, it's a sure thing.

Meh even that "getting there" is kinda questionable atm, I understand all of his augs are maxed in the demonstrations and we've only seen a pre-alpha build so far, but I really think stealthing was far too easy in the gameplay demos we've seen.
Still waiting to see how that actually plays out in the actual demo/final version.

IOOI
23rd Sep 2010, 01:16
1. 3rd person cover system

Cosmetics
What? :scratch: But this is something used for stealth and combat. :confused: Why do you consider it a cosmetic feature? What do you define as a cosmetic feature? Would it be less pleasing with another cover system or without one? What would be the best and why?


3. 3rd person ladder climbing

LOL cosmetics
How can this be just for cosmetics when it allows the player to see above ledges? Don't you consider that an advantageous feature like this is more than cosmetics? But then again, why do you consider it a cosmetic feature? :confused:


5. No multitools/lockpicks.

An improvement, as far as I'm concerned. Lockpick/mtools were redundant.
Agreed.

Couldn't they add to depth and variety or realism? Why do you consider it redundant and how sure of that are you? What do you consider to be reduntant in HR? :confused:



I'm trying to learn more. I hope you could help me out with this since others here in the community have been quite helpful. :)

Pinky_Powers
23rd Sep 2010, 03:04
We're not saying keep every single detail the same, but instead acknowledging that if you make a change - such as, for example, third person camera for a whole host of actions - that will not only change that aspect, but will have a knock on effect to other systems, etc etc. Before you know it, one change requires 10 others to get it to work, and those 10 each require further, etc etc - and you end up with something significantly different. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the use of third person in this game will significantly change the gameplay experience.

I admit the experience will have changed. This idea of "we must show the player how cool Adam is," bothers me. It is a change in the presentation. But only to the extent of perspective. It will be different, but third person doesn't take away from the sneaking, the infiltration, the uncovering of intel, the mystery... the pace of the game.

Watching the Adam and Tong conversation shows me the grittiness is very much alive in Human Revolution. And as much as I don't like the cutscene-feel to the takedowns, they also hold to the dark, gritty feel I so loved about Deus Ex. They just do it in a different way; the presentation has changed.

They should have stuck to first-person, no doubt. DX was going for a more simulated reality. And third-person has no place in that concept. This is one of the core aspects of Deus Ex that they indeed abandoned.
It may surprise you to hear me say that, as I've spouted opposite sentiments in the past. But my opinion on it has changed over time. Some of you have persuaded me. :)

I don't believe this is a result of "dumbing down", as I've said before, a perspective switch has no baring on the intelligence of the gameplay. And I don't believe they were driven to it for the sake of casual gamers. I think when they say these are decisions they believe in, they're speaking the truth. For good or ill, they think this is good for the game.

I do not.

No choice that removes a core element is good unless that core was wrong to begin with. And I can't imagine anyone believing that. The prolific third-person switch damages the sense of a simulated reality. It doesn't destroy it, but it hurts it in the same way that the third-person conversations hurt it in Deus Ex. But unlike Human Revolution, every time you were in control of the character, you were in first-person. This was a core of the gameplay.

God only knows why they decided to change that. Maybe they just didn't see it like that. ...whatever.

My point is, the change is there, even at its core. But this particular core is, as Teabag said, more of a cosmetic... a presentation. But even on the subject of presentation, the two games have plenty alike... though less so than DX and IW.



------ I was trying to follow what you were saying about the one change begetting ten other changes, and those ten begetting even more... it seems very sound, but I just don't see it, myself. Can you expound on that?

beastrn
23rd Sep 2010, 03:40
I just read a post from Pinky Power that didn't result in me having to run to the sink. It's like christmas!


It may surprise you to hear me say that, as I've spouted opposite sentiments in the past. But my opinion on it has changed over time. Some of you have persuaded me. :)

Let me be the first to welcome you to the club. Here's a badge and your complimentary thesaurus. Your first order of business is to write an 800 word post detailing why health regeneration is a concession to casual non-gamers. We'll see you monday.

Oh and leave that Assassin's Creed gibberish at the door, thanks.

:)

WildcatPhoenix
23rd Sep 2010, 03:52
I don't believe this is a result of "dumbing down", as I've said before, a perspective switch has no baring on the intelligence of the gameplay. And I don't believe they were driven to it for the sake of casual gamers. I think when they say these are decisions they believe in, they're speaking the truth. For good or ill, they think this is good for the game.


I'm actually inclined to agree. Most of the interviews seem to indicate that EM genuinely believes they are making the right decision here. Obviously I disagree with that opinion, but it doesn't seem like a deliberate "hey, let's cater to the knuckle-draggers out there!" mentality.

Sure, in my more bitter moments I decry Eidos' greedy obsession with marketing to the lowest common denominator. But in my more lucid moments, I realize it's more likely just a case of the the studio badly miscalculating what truly comprises "the core of Deus Ex."

NKD
23rd Sep 2010, 07:36
I admit the experience will have changed. This idea of "we must show the player how cool Adam is," bothers me. It is a change in the presentation. But only to the extent of perspective. It will be different, but third person doesn't take away from the sneaking, the infiltration, the uncovering of intel, the mystery... the pace of the game.

Fair point. While it may result in a few of those things being executed a bit differently, a third person perspective doesn't exclude any of the gameplay from DX. Seems to me it's just a matter of preference.


Watching the Adam and Tong conversation shows me the grittiness is very much alive in Human Revolution. And as much as I don't like the cutscene-feel to the takedowns, they also hold to the dark, gritty feel I so loved about Deus Ex. They just do it in a different way; the presentation has changed.

Yeah if the other conversations are just as environmental as that, I'll be hooked. Way ahead of IW, and even ahead of DX in that respect. This is one of those things where graphics goes a long way to help set a mood. That dark bar lighting just pulls me in a lot more than what the previous two games engines were capable of. Combined with the meat of the conversation itself, it has a lot of promise if they can keep that up throughout the whole game.


I don't believe this is a result of "dumbing down", as I've said before, a perspective switch has no baring on the intelligence of the gameplay. And I don't believe they were driven to it for the sake of casual gamers. I think when they say these are decisions they believe in, they're speaking the truth. For good or ill, they think this is good for the game.

I do not.

I agree with you there. If they had made the decision for the sake of casual gamers, the whole game would be in third person. Not just cover, ladders, and takedowns. That seems to me that they simply thought it looked better, from a visual standpoint. Whether it turns out to actually have the devastating game-ruining effect people imply, remains to be seen. I'm not a good judge of that because frankly, I don't care about first or third person. It's just not in my list of what a Deus Ex game needs in order for me to play it through 5+ times.


No choice that removes a core element is good unless that core was wrong to begin with. And I can't imagine anyone believing that. The prolific third-person switch damages the sense of a simulated reality. It doesn't destroy it, but it hurts it in the same way that the third-person conversations hurt it in Deus Ex. But unlike Human Revolution, every time you were in control of the character, you were in first-person. This was a core of the gameplay.

Third person conversations are an absolute necessity, IMHO. Even in an otherwise totally first person game. There's a disconnect there in first person. In a real life conversation you know how you feel. But in a game the only way to describe those things is by showing them to you. If you eliminate body language and facial expression, all you've got left is tone of voice. That cuts out 2/3rds of the emotional indicators human beings have. You basically rob the developers of a ton of fantastic ways to set and maintain a mood and create the appearance of a dynamic real conversation.


God only knows why they decided to change that. Maybe they just didn't see it like that. ...whatever.

While many of us would prefer a first person perspective, I think you're going to see more noise about it not being fully third person, than not being fully first person. It's become sort of standard to do a fully third person view for these sorts of games, and people expect it and have grown comfortable with it. I don't think the lack of a fully first person perspective will really bug anyone but some fans of the original DX, but the lack of fully third person is definitely going to get brought up in every review.

Isterio
23rd Sep 2010, 08:12
What is the topic about again? It seems to have drifted away a little to the main question of this whole forum:

"Is it ok that EM makes so many changes on the game regarding the original DE?"

Well, I guess we'll know, when it's finally out. I don't mind changes, as long, as the whole picture is nice to experience. A remake of DE would be a little disappointing to me. As long, as I have lots of fun (in a professional and non-consolistic kind of way), I'm open for different aspects. After all the form is less important, than the content, right?

Ashpolt
23rd Sep 2010, 09:17
------ I was trying to follow what you were saying about the one change begetting ten other changes, and those ten begetting even more... it seems very sound, but I just don't see it, myself. Can you expound on that?

Jerion can explain it better than me - it's his theory, after all - but the idea is that if (for instance) you change the perspective to third person, you've got to change (for instance) the level design to cope with that, because third person can't cope with tight corridors or other small enclosed spaces in the way that first person can, and also as you're not so "up-close" with the world, the texture resolution doesn't need to be so high, etc. Then once you've changed the level design to accomodate for this, you've got to change your path options a bit - that narrow corridor you were using as the "stealth" way in to this base now can't fit, because it was sandwiched between two other corridors which have had to be expanded to accomodate a third person camera, and there's simply no space left.

Or to give a more demonstrable explanation in DXHR's case, if you add in regenerating health, you've pretty much got to remove limb-specific damage on the player character, because the former system makes the latter pretty redundant. And so on and so on.


Third person conversations are an absolute necessity, IMHO. Even in an otherwise totally first person game. There's a disconnect there in first person. In a real life conversation you know how you feel. But in a game the only way to describe those things is by showing them to you. If you eliminate body language and facial expression, all you've got left is tone of voice. That cuts out 2/3rds of the emotional indicators human beings have. You basically rob the developers of a ton of fantastic ways to set and maintain a mood and create the appearance of a dynamic real conversation.

This is the difference. Deus Ex is supposed to be about how you feel, and how you react to the circumstances - not about how the character you are playing feels. You don't need the visual cues, because you're meant to be reacting yourself. See a character do something atrocious? In your next conversation with your character, you, the player, will be feeling angry - or may be laughing at it, if you're that kind of person - or may decide that that character was justified in what they were doing, and may choose to approach them more calmly. JC Denton was a blank slate for a reason: it meant the character didn't give you cues as to how you were "supposed" to react to any given situation, it left the decision as yours.

And to all those saying third person or first person perspective is just cosmetics: play Duke Nukem 3D, then Duke Nukem: Time to Kill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem:_Time_to_Kill) and say that again. Or play Fallout 3 / Oblivion entirely in third person.

avenging_teabag
23rd Sep 2010, 09:47
Sure, real soldiers use cover. They don't, however, have magical cameras that detach from their heads. You want a 1st/3rd person compromise? Make it an aug, just like the Spy Drone aug from the first game. Give players the ability to see around corners, but require them to install the aug first. I have no problem with this.

I do have a problem with Adam diving out and rolling like a complete jackass. This would make you completely dizzy for a few seconds afterward and ruin any chance of hitting your target. Plus, you look like a fool. It has no place in a Deus Ex game.
Yeah, and flashlight eyeballs will probably fry your brain in 5 seconds or something. Way to completely miss a point, which was: judging gameplay mechanics by how "realistic" they are is really, really... naive. Go get a bunch of grenades and try to climb a wall using them as a ladder. See how high you would go.


I strongly, strongly disagree. Do you really think it is just a question of "technicality" when it comes to performing an action vs. watching someone perform an action? THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE, and that difference has a name.

It's called "immersion."
*shrug* It doesn't matter for me, honestly. Immersion =/= playing as a detached head floating in space at all times. I can understand complains that constant jerking in and out of first person might get annoying as the game progresses, especially if it's not implemented smoothly. I'm a little wary of that myself, but we have no way to judge that until we played the game for a couple of hours, but this? Meh.



Nothing to do with real life. It's just that it would look weird, and you'd be lifted out of character, to a mini game, in order to get into someone's back yard. Try playing Dreamfall if you want to see how strange that feels.
I misunderstood you then. Apologies.



All those little things add to the feeling of a complex world.
I understand your point, but I don't agree. Complex world was being created by providing players with a set of tools that they could use creatively and freely, building their own experience. There was nothing creative or free about two types of doors (always the same) being opened with two types of keys (always the same). It was shortening precious inventory space and adding nothing but tedium in exchange. I haven't played IW (got scared away by internet rage and boxart), but "multitool opens everything" is exactly the type of approach I would use. Unified ammo is another matter entirely.


What? :scratch: But this is something used for stealth and combat. :confused: Why do you consider it a cosmetic feature? What do you define as a cosmetic feature? Would it be less pleasing with another cover system or without one? What would be the best and why?
We were talking more about the third person aspect, but honestly, I don't see much of a difference between running up to a conveniently placed crate and pressing "crouch" and running up to a conveniently placed wall and pressing "cover". Especially in a game that is not a dedicated shooter. As Pinky said above it's more a matter of presentation. As for the non-cosmetic features, obviously they vary from genre to genre; when it comes to Deus Ex well, I think I'll just give you a post that explains it very clearly:


A thing on multi-paths; Their existence is not a purpose in itself, and showcasing them as a feature of its own would be missing the point.

Regardless of how well or not DX pulled it off, the idea behind multiple paths and possibilities, the actual reasoning as to why they were implemented in DX, is to ensure, as much as possible, that the solution which comes naturally to the player at the given time appears to be the natural path the game, and story, were meant to follow. If your reasoning, your natural approach, is thoroughly different to mine, the game should follow through with your decision as if it were the only logical one at the time, just as well.

The idea is not even replayability. That's a bonus, but one that doesn't fit in the equation of your engineered experience.

Which is why I always find silly the games which flat out tell you to chose between outcomes, or at least heavily hint at the options ahead. For ultimate results, I should barely see the options, if at all. Saving Paul or not was a gameplay moment which any game designer aiming to build this kind of experience should look into very closely. You can say, ultimately, that it didn't change much story-wise, but that's another topic entirely. The idea is that it was not even presented as a choice. Some listenned and left, others thought they ought to stay and see if they could make a difference. In both cases, the game simply followed through, without fanfare or trumpets.

I'm often served here that immersion is a personal variable. This kind of design proves how you can engineer immersion with fairly accurate results, regardless of the player's personal tastes. The thinking behind this offering of multiple paths demonstrated an understanding of how to build a moment, or an experience. I wonder if EM has figured that out, or if they're simply looking to showcase how many options they have. I haven't made a judgement yet, by the way, so don't think I'm pessimist about this. Seeing the depth of this one example, it can truly swing both ways right now, and that's somewhat exciting.

That is what is truly important for me when it comes to this game. If EM pulls it off, the game will be at least somewhat Deus Ex even if there are little twinkletoe unicorns prancing around Sarif Ind. (exaggerating there, but still). Botch this, and all the first persons and multitools won't save you.



I'm trying to learn more. I hope you could help me out with this since others here in the community have been quite helpful. :)
If you're not pulling my leg here, then glad if my not particularly relevant opinion was of any help. :flowers:

NKD
23rd Sep 2010, 10:04
This is the difference. Deus Ex is supposed to be about how you feel, and how you react to the circumstances - not about how the character you are playing feels. You don't need the visual cues, because you're meant to be reacting yourself. See a character do something atrocious? In your next conversation with your character, you, the player, will be feeling angry - or may be laughing at it, if you're that kind of person - or may decide that that character was justified in what they were doing, and may choose to approach them more calmly. JC Denton was a blank slate for a reason: it meant the character didn't give you cues as to how you were "supposed" to react to any given situation, it left the decision as yours.

Right, that's precisely the disconnect I'm talking about. You feel a certain way, so you make a choice. The payoff of that choice is acted out by your character, and the characters around him. Regardless of how into a game someone is, there's a limit to the amount of emotion you're going to feel when the consequences are just a Quick Load away from being erased. It's up to JC, or Adam, to deliver on your choices convincingly. Without being able to see body language or facial expression, you're getting only 1/3rd of the experience, and the character isn't going to seem as lifelife.

Imagine playing Assassin's Creed or Mass Effect if the conversations were in first person. In Assassins Creed 2, for example, Ezio running to that one judge guys house after his family gets into trouble. It shows him standing at the door, frantic, his body language reflects this. With just the voice, well, you miss a lot of great stuff. If none of that is important to you, then yes I can understand your thinking.


And to all those saying third person or first person perspective is just cosmetics: play Duke Nukem 3D, then Duke Nukem: Time to Kill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem:_Time_to_Kill) and say that again.

Disingenuous comparison. Duke Nukem is just a shooter, plain and simple. There's nothing to be gained by a third person perspective. Let alone a poorly implemented one. And on that note...


Or play Fallout 3 / Oblivion entirely in third person.

Third person being a poorly implemented afterthought in Bethesda games is a problem not inherent to third person.

In fact, both of those games would have been significantly better if they had fully realized third person mode. Especially Oblivion. Combat felt awful in that game. Wack wack wack swinging a sword the exact same way in first person mode for god knows how many hours. I almost always played a mage character in Oblivion because the melee combat was so atrocious.

Fallout 3 fares a bit better in first person because of the shooter focus, but given that it is almost always advantageous to use VATS, a full third person mode would have been fantastic. There are a lot of character model and animation mods from the community for those games, just to try and patch up the abysmal third person.

Kodaemon
23rd Sep 2010, 10:12
Combat felt awful in [Oblivion]. Wack wack wack swinging a sword the exact same way in first person mode for god knows how many hours. I almost always played a mage character in Oblivion because the melee combat was so atrocious.

I think you just didn't get the hang of the combat. It's surprisingly good once you learn how to use it properly, with the various powered attacks etc.

Pinky_Powers
23rd Sep 2010, 10:15
Jerion can explain it better than me - it's his theory, after all - but the idea is that if (for instance) you change the perspective to third person, you've got to change (for instance) the level design to cope with that, because third person can't cope with tight corridors or other small enclosed spaces in the way that first person can, and also as you're not so "up-close" with the world, the texture resolution doesn't need to be so high, etc. Then once you've changed the level design to accomodate for this, you've got to change your path options a bit - that narrow corridor you were using as the "stealth" way in to this base now can't fit, because it was sandwiched between two other corridors which have had to be expanded to accomodate a third person camera, and there's simply no space left.

I am curious about how much of this happened in Human Revolution. But I can't see it being too pervasive. Watching the footage and seeing the screens, it looks to me it was build for first-person. Strolling down the streets of Hengsha, it's every bit the first-person spectacle. But I imagine certain corridors were built slightly wider for any camera shifting that may, or may not, take place.

These are solid points, but I can't see them being as relevant to HR as you fear. The game has to look good in first-person, it's still primarily a first-person game. And even when it shifts to third, the camera is often quite close, so textures need to be crisp as often as the engine will allow.

I did laugh when you used Fallout and Oblivion as examples. Everybody will tell you, third-person is absolutely broken in Bethesda's recent games. They spent no time making it handle properly, it's a freakin' nightmare.

And I've never played that Nukem version, so I can't comment on that.

But you're right. Generalities are not helping us here. It's not fair to say that adding in third-person is never a bad thing.

So let's talk specifics. If they had build Human Revolution as primarily a third-person game, everything would have had to change. Everything would look different because the camera's far away, the maps would be completely different. You wouldn't be stacking boxes or climbing on top of very many things. Chances are good they would have to focus on either stealth, like Splinter Cell, or combat like Mass Effect. But doing both would probably cause one to suffer over the other. Just about every facet of the game would be different.

But instead we have primarily a first-person game that is designed to go into third-person for a number of different actions. I make a point of saying it was "designed to", because this makes all the difference in the world. It's not a cheesy add-on, or last minute decision. Going into third-person is something they want to work very well. I've already spoken on how I think this was a mistake. And you're almost certainly right; there had to be accommodations made to support this. But it's not even comparable to the outrageous notion of trying to play Oblivion in third-person. :lol:

PS. I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing at the terrible, grotesque idea. :D

Irate_Iguana
23rd Sep 2010, 10:21
Imagine playing Assassin's Creed or Mass Effect if the conversations were in first person. In Assassins Creed 2, for example, Ezio running to that one judge guys house after his family gets into trouble. It shows him standing at the door, frantic, his body language reflects this. With just the voice, well, you miss a lot of great stuff. If none of that is important to you, then yes I can understand your thinking.

This only works if you actually feel the same way as the protagonist is supposed to feel. If I don't give a damn about his family, why would I find it important that he runs to judge guys house and is all panicky. I could feel that he needs to man up and do something instead of standing around like an angsty emo. Showing convincing emotions can be a bigger challenge than making the player imagine those emotions.

Ashpolt
23rd Sep 2010, 11:27
Right, that's precisely the disconnect I'm talking about. You feel a certain way, so you make a choice. The payoff of that choice is acted out by your character, and the characters around him. Regardless of how into a game someone is, there's a limit to the amount of emotion you're going to feel when the consequences are just a Quick Load away from being erased. It's up to JC, or Adam, to deliver on your choices convincingly. Without being able to see body language or facial expression, you're getting only 1/3rd of the experience, and the character isn't going to seem as lifelife.

Imagine playing Assassin's Creed or Mass Effect if the conversations were in first person. In Assassins Creed 2, for example, Ezio running to that one judge guys house after his family gets into trouble. It shows him standing at the door, frantic, his body language reflects this. With just the voice, well, you miss a lot of great stuff. If none of that is important to you, then yes I can understand your thinking.

If the game's storyline is told well, with characters that I care about, then I won't need to see Ezio feeling those things, because I will be feeling them myself.


Disingenuous comparison. Duke Nukem is just a shooter, plain and simple. There's nothing to be gained by a third person perspective. Let alone a poorly implemented one. And on that note...

Yes, DN is just a pure shooter. But now that they're removed statistics from combat, the shooting part of DXHR is pretty much a pure shooter. Yes, there's other stuff around it, but at the end of the day, the shooting mechanics are going to work like general shooter mechanics. Look at the gameplay video and tell me honestly that the shooting parts don't look like Rainbow Six Vegas. Then if you're honestly going to try and argue that they don't, read any of the interviews were Dugas has directly said that it works pretty much like R6V. Also....


Third person being a poorly implemented afterthought in Bethesda games is a problem not inherent to third person.

In fact, both of those games would have been significantly better if they had fully realized third person mode. Especially Oblivion. Combat felt awful in that game. Wack wack wack swinging a sword the exact same way in first person mode for god knows how many hours. I almost always played a mage character in Oblivion because the melee combat was so atrocious.

Fallout 3 fares a bit better in first person because of the shooter focus, but given that it is almost always advantageous to use VATS, a full third person mode would have been fantastic. There are a lot of character model and animation mods from the community for those games, just to try and patch up the abysmal third person.

My point was not that third person was bad, simply that perspective is more than purely cosmetic change. Oblivion and fallout 3 handle combat mechanics identically in first and third person, and as you say, it works terribly in third person, so they're perhaps the ideal example of my point: change the perspective, but leave everything else exactly the same, and it's not just a cosmetic change. Whether the quality goes up or down either way isn't related to the point I'm making: the point is, there's a difference.


So let's talk specifics. If they had build Human Revolution as primarily a third-person game, everything would have had to change. Everything would look different because the camera's far away, the maps would be completely different. You wouldn't be stacking boxes or climbing on top of very many things. Chances are good they would have to focus on either stealth, like Splinter Cell, or combat like Mass Effect. But doing both would probably cause one to suffer over the other. Just about every facet of the game would be different.

But instead we have primarily a first-person game that is designed to go into third-person for a number of different actions. I make a point of saying it was "designed to", because this makes all the difference in the world. It's not a cheesy add-on, or last minute decision. Going into third-person is something they want to work very well. I've already spoken on how I think this was a mistake. And you're almost certainly right; there had to be accommodations made to support this. But it's not even comparable to the outrageous notion of trying to play Oblivion in third-person. :lol:

The fact that it's primarily first person makes no difference; they still have to design the entire game to accomodate third person, because it's always (presumably) a possibility. It may be that corridor x in level y will, by chance, never be seen in third person by any single player: but they'll still have to design that corridor to be able to accomodate a third person camera just in case. In this case, the fact that it's designed to do this from the start guarantees that it'll have more effect, not less.

And besides, these were just examples. You can pick apart the particular examples I chose if you like, but the overall point still stands: no change is simply one change in itself. There are knock-on effects leading to knock-on effects.

Pinky_Powers
23rd Sep 2010, 12:42
The fact that it's primarily first person makes no difference; they still have to design the entire game to accomodate third person, because it's always (presumably) a possibility.

This is simply not true. You're failing to understand the importance of this "sort" of third-person. It's not like Mass Effect, Gears of War or Splinter Cell. It's closeness and function are much more like first-person than you care to realize. It doesn't trail behind the character as you maneuver around. It is activated when you're taking cover or using an Aug, and it does a very specific angle. So the level designers aren't constantly worried the camera is going to move through a wall.

When you activate certain Augs or takedowns, the camera is not in your control, so it can avoid these problems also.

This being principally a first-person game makes a huge difference.

Red
23rd Sep 2010, 12:54
I understand your point, but I don't agree. Complex world was being created by providing players with a set of tools that they could use creatively and freely, building their own experience. There was nothing creative or free about two types of doors (always the same) being opened with two types of keys (always the same). It was shortening precious inventory space and adding nothing but tedium in exchange. I haven't played IW (got scared away by internet rage and boxart), but "multitool opens everything" is exactly the type of approach I would use. Unified ammo is another matter entirely.

But that's exactly the gist of playing an RPG. You invest in some particular skill, say lockpicking, and you will lockpick into "conventional" containers and rejoice when looting them. When you get to a high-tech door, you have to multitool it before you can open it, same as with the previous lockpick example.

And the real diamond in that approach is exactly the one you stated! You have to consider where to invest skill points in, lockpicking OR multitooling, and if you want the tradeoff of both, you get less inventory space at your disposal. Also, consequentially, you get to put less skill points into say combat or something. Everything in these kind of games comes as a tradeoff, since you can't just have everything you'd want to have in a single plathrough. The management of all these aspects is the thrill we all seek in the RPGs.

As someone here somewhere, on these boards, mentioned once already - Fallout 3 HAD these elements, just to take a nasty dump on them by having situations like this: There's a locked door. Don't have enough lockpick points? Sure, here's a terminal, you can hack it. Don't have enough Hack points? Sure, have a dead guard nearby with password on him. Don't care to explore and loot dead bodies? Heck, just take the damm key from the table.

Now that's the crappy redundancy we WOULDN'T want even if there was granularity of 2 different "door-openers" concept still implemented.

Now, as it (maybe) is in HR, is just: You have the Hack aug? Sure then, you can open all locked doors that were meant to be unlocked. You just didn't have that in Deus Ex. It was more like: You want to unlock this door/container/delicious_weapons_depot? Whut, untrained lockpicking? Well, then, 5 lockpicks mate or gtfo.

Would type some more on this issue, but I've already way exceeded my usual quota on words-per-post :P