PDA

View Full Version : A Positive Message About DX3



FlyingDove
18th Oct 2010, 03:55
I just cannot stand seeing people look so negative towards this game. Sure, it may have some gameplay features like a third-person cover mechanic, one button takedowns, etc., but at least we are actually getting another really complex game. Regardless, it's still going to be one of the most complex games (probably 5 times the size of Mass Effect 2) to ever come out in the history of games. This isn't something like a real space flight simulator, but for a fictional game and for an industry that's littered with thousands of titles every decade that are pretty simplistic, that's a major accomplishment for Eidos (even if the game fails). It definitely appears to have the more casual gamers in mind, or those hardcore ones that have not played a DX game before.

There really isn't any other title like it coming out next year, except maybe for DN: Forever, which will offer some other gameplay than just FPS. DX3 still looks like it might be the best game of 2011. And if you think that DX3 sucks, well, then all the other, really same-same, very linear titles (even Gears of War 3, The Last Guardian, etc.) are definitely all crap, too.

If this game sells well, maybe the other sequels will learn even more from the original game, and we might just see other game developers jump in on the race for the best hybrid game experience. In fact, in 5-10 years from now, I predict that the shooter genre will be replaced by games like DX, as the best selling games around.

Senka
18th Oct 2010, 04:03
How do you judge game size? Play length? World size? ME2 was about 36 hours. 5 times? Nah.

People have different opinions, deal with it. Twitch shooters will probably still dominate MP in the future too, perhaps changed a little with new technology.

pringlepower
18th Oct 2010, 04:25
The fact is you can ether have art or you can have money because anything popular is crap.

If we could revive him, Zombie/Android Picasso would disagree.

As would zombie/android Hemingway. And Coppola. And Shakespeare. Blah dee blah blah blah.

Also that would mean Deus Ex is crap.

Gaunt88
18th Oct 2010, 04:27
(EDIT: Post in question got moderator'd.)

Anyway, I have to share OP's optimism. I think DX:HR is going to be an excelent, complex game. It's probably going to be my shooter/First-person game of the year.

tartarus_sauce
18th Oct 2010, 04:28
Yeah, it amazes there are so many obnoxious CHUDs who spend months on this DX3 forum *****ing and moaning about a game they've never played. This whole sad, pathetic attitude of "Hurrr, all games made today are for stupid people! DX3 is the next step to the great dumbening that will doom America!" has got to go. The fact is that the games of the past were never really that complex, and while the rise of cover shooters and the consolidation of the games industry has led to heavily streamlined mechanics in shooters, the fact is that games are making up for that by pushing increasingly mature and sophisticated stories.

Deus_Ex_Machina
18th Oct 2010, 04:40
Yeah, it amazes there are so many obnoxious CHUDs who spend months on this DX3 forum *****ing and moaning about a game they've never played.

Agreed. It's almost as amazing as all those obnoxious CHUDs who spend months on this forum praising a game they've never played. ;)

LeMoN_LiMe
18th Oct 2010, 05:30
Oh look, another one of these threads.

The haters are all right and you're wrong. You just don't understand. Halo, COD are all terrible games. They are games made for noobs. If you like them you're a noob. Deus Ex 3 is made for these same noobs. Noobs spend money on games without thinking. Die hards don't so they aren't a viable market.

The fact is you can ether have art or you can have money because anything popular is crap.



Really? Die hards dont buy games without thinking? lol
Their the ones that buy games no-matter what! Developers depend on die hards as "always buy" fans!
The casuals are the ones that either look at the game and buy it OR look at the game and say this isnt for me and passes it up!
Die hards reserve their copy 6 months in advance.

BigBoss
18th Oct 2010, 05:43
Mass Effect 2 was like 20 hours for me so 5x only puts it at 100. Fallout 3 nearly doubles this AND waaaay more complex than me2

Ninjerk
18th Oct 2010, 06:00
Regardless, it's still going to be one of the most complex games (probably 5 times the size of Mass Effect 2) to ever come out in the history of games

whaaaat


the fact is that games are making up for that by pushing increasingly mature and sophisticated stories.

whaaaat, elaborate please

JCpies
18th Oct 2010, 06:36
Yeah, it amazes there are so many obnoxious CHUDs who spend months on this DX3 forum *****ing and moaning about a game they've never played.

If they don't have the right to criticise, then why do you have the right to praise it? After all, you've never played the game.... just like Call of Duty, 'It's gonna be awesomesauzzz cos it's called cod'.

Just saying.

pringlepower
18th Oct 2010, 06:45
If they don't have the right to criticise, then why do you have the right to praise it? After all, you've never played the game.... just like Call of Duty, 'It's gonna be awesomesauzzz cos it's called cod'.

Just saying.

Well it was pretty awesome.

Red
18th Oct 2010, 09:11
I just cannot stand seeing people look so negative towards this game. Sure, it may have some gameplay features like a third-person cover mechanic, one button takedowns,

, health regeneration, scalable difficulty, exclusion of skills, inevitable cut scenes in the middle of play...

Irate_Iguana
18th Oct 2010, 10:00
I just cannot stand seeing people look so negative towards this game.

So, what do you actually like about the game? There are plenty of people that post about what they don't like. Most of the people that like the game aren't actually posting what they like about it.




If this game sells well, maybe the other sequels will learn even more from the original game, and we might just see other game developers jump in on the race for the best hybrid game experience. In fact, in 5-10 years from now, I predict that the shooter genre will be replaced by games like DX, as the best selling games around.

It doesn't work like that. They changed a whole lot of the experience from DX and steered it towards a new and more casual audience. If the game sells well that will be seen as a vindication of their current course. The next game will sail forth on that course even more boldly than this one already did.

People also thought that games like DX would be the future of gaming. We are now 10 years later and all we have is a single game attempting to get close.

Mindmute
18th Oct 2010, 10:13
[EDITED OUT THE COMMENT @[FGS]Shadowrunner since MyImmortal cleared the thread of posts like his. Thanks a bunch!]



Moving on towards someone who actually deserves the attention:


I just cannot stand seeing people look so negative towards this game. Sure, it may have some gameplay features like a third-person cover mechanic, one button takedowns, etc., but at least we are actually getting another really complex game. Regardless, it's still going to be one of the most complex games (probably 5 times the size of Mass Effect 2) to ever come out in the history of games. (...) It definitely appears to have the more casual gamers in mind, or those hardcore ones that have not played a DX game before.

Oh absolutely. By some degree we are getting a rather complex game, especially by today's standards, and I have no doubt it'll be a very good game to play. However the way I feel is that while those features aren't inherintely bad, the way they were justified implies a conscious decision to follow current market trends and (like you so correctly said) appeal more to casual gamers.
The way I see it however, considering the potential of the game, it might end up being a complex game in spite of that mindset, rather than because of it. For example, while I do love the setting, Mass Effect was in no way a complex game and the story was as cheesy as they could make it, so for me it was a good game in spite of those two attributes.


Some of us just believe DX3 could easilly do even better than it's showing so far ;)




Edit: Added bold and underline for emphasis since a lot of people still haven't realised that last bit.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
18th Oct 2010, 10:19
Edited/deleted all posts that make pointless claims about a person's intelligence or purpose here.
Threads would keep on track if people stick to talking about the game, not the players. ;)

PS. Anyone who quoted a deleted post may wish to go back and remove it/edit post.

Ninjerk
18th Oct 2010, 11:30
So, what do you actually like about the game? There are plenty of people that post about what they don't like. Most of the people that like the game aren't actually posting what they like about it.


Sure they are. It's a Deus Ex game, lol.:nut::nut::nut:

pha
18th Oct 2010, 11:32
Regardless, it's still going to be one of the most complex games (probably 5 times the size of Mass Effect 2) to ever come out in the history of games.

I'm gonna pretend that you're sincere, and not a flamebaiting blockhead.

EM is making decisions ONLY in terms of today's standards, correct me if I missed something but the game has no revolutionary new features, it's just a compilation of what seemed to work in financially successful games in the current game generation. It'll be praised as one of the most complex games of this gen, no doubt, but get ready to be mocked and ridiculed if you honestly think it'll be one of the most complex games of all time.

And you're just naïve if you think amagadsocomplex games like DX3 will replace pure shooters.

Pinky_Powers
18th Oct 2010, 13:10
My first playthrough of Mass Effect 2 clocked in at over sixty hours. Deus Ex -Human Revolution is reported at being a thirty hour game. How is that five times larger? :confused:

AlexOfSpades
18th Oct 2010, 13:34
I hope that my Deus Ex Human Revolution playtime will go over nine thousand hours

Pinky_Powers
18th Oct 2010, 14:01
I hope that my Deus Ex Human Revolution playtime will go over nine thousand hours

Fear nothing, AlexOfSpades, according to FlyingDove's math skills...
Deus + Ex + Unicorn + Pixie sperm = over 9000 anything! :eek:

FrankCSIS
18th Oct 2010, 15:14
the fact is that games are making up for that by pushing increasingly mature and sophisticated stories.

What, exactly, is your starting point in history, to claim any such increase? Certainly not the 90's, or early 2000. Not even mid-2000, really. There has always been games, even shooters, with complex and sophisticated stories, it's just that they didn't make a big deal out of it, because it was normal. Anything that wasn't a pure platformer, or a sports game or a pure, pure shooter had a decent story. RPG's, as old as we can go back, as well as adventure games, had stories with depth never since replicated. You just think of Loom, an antiquity from LucasArt, really, and you find an amazingly developped story built-in within the very intriguing mechanics of the game, all of which are based on Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake. Built in the late 80's, realeased in 1990. Sold half a million copies, which was solid considering its cost, and the general sales numbers of the time.

Put them both side by side, and Bioshock looks as though it's been put together by teenagers. Not that it did not have a very interesting premise, and solid roots within the fantasy of pure capitalism, but to say it's an increase in sophistication over it would be silly. Of course, if you compare Bio to Doom, that's another story. But compared to Half-Life, or even Max Payne and its multiple layers of hidden story, it's hardly an increase.

The increase I will gladly recognise, however, is production value. It is undeniable that the money of uninterested parties looking mostly for an investment has brought an enormous increase in overall production value, and has served to democratise the medium a great deal. This came with a price though, which many people are tired to pay, namely the loss of variation from titles to titles. Which brings us back to DX 3, and its mechanics entirely borrowed from games working in a similar fashion released recently.

Ashpolt
18th Oct 2010, 15:57
The fact is that the games of the past were never really that complex, and while the rise of cover shooters and the consolidation of the games industry has led to heavily streamlined mechanics in shooters, the fact is that games are making up for that by pushing increasingly mature and sophisticated stories.

I don't agree with this statement (as FrankCSIS says above, where are you getting this idea?) but even if it was true, you can't justify simplifying gameplay mechanics - which are intrinsic to games, utterly necessary as they're what stops the game being a movie - by increasing depth of the stories which, while great to have and definitely a bonus in certain games, are not a necessity. Don't agree with me?

A game without a story is (for example) Rock Band, or Tetris, or Counter-Strike, or Gran Turismo, etc etc. A game can be great without a story.

A game without gameplay is a movie. By definition, games cannot exist, much less be great, without gameplay.

Gameplay is a necessity for games: stories aren't. Thus, you can't justify "dumbing down" gameplay by (apparently) increasing the depth of the story: at best a great story is a consolation prize for bad gameplay, but it's never an adequate replacement.

And again, where are you getting this idea that games are getting more complex storylines anyway? Maybe mainstream games are getting more complex storylines, but that's happening at the expense of the very existence of more in-depth games, which have had decently complex storylines for years, as FrankCSIS pointed out. So while Bioshock may have a more complex story than, say, Unreal, it's because Bioshock is (sadly) this generation's answer to System Shock, and shouldn't be directly compared to Unreal in the first place. Compare it to System Shock 2 though, and it pales.

[FGS]Shadowrunner
18th Oct 2010, 18:37
I suspect a lot of forum users are FPS not RPG fans. This would explain some bizarre posts.

Ask yourselves why did Columbia Pictures stop development shortly after 9/11?
The flight 93 movie has been made, films about the Iraq invasion and slaughter have been made, so why hasn't some insignificant science fiction movie still not been made yet?
DX1 is one of the most powerful stories ever written. It takes a certain kind of humanity to appreciate the humanity of Deus Ex, therefore maybe a lot of forum users are going to be really disappointed by Deus Ex 3.
I know I won't be, I've seen enough already to see that social upheaval, humanity and non-lethal choices are important parts of Deus Ex 3. Whether DX3 has perfect gameplay better than ME2 or COD, I really don't care, it's an action RPG. If the gameplay is hot, then even better... but it's not my concern.

Mindmute
18th Oct 2010, 18:53
Shadowrunner;1511597']I suspect a lot of forum users are FPS not RPG fans. This would explain some bizarre posts.


Once again, you take a pot-shot at a very big number of people, for no reason and with no justification.


Shadowrunner;1511597']
Ask yourselves why did Columbia Pictures stop development shortly after 9/11?
The flight 93 movie has been made, films about the Iraq invasion and slaughter have been made, so why hasn't some insignificant science fiction movie still not been made yet?


Inconsequential to the quality of DX:HR as a Deus Ex game or to how big a fan one is of the series.


Shadowrunner;1511597']
DX1 is one of the most powerful stories ever written. It takes a certain kind of humanity to appreciate the humanity of Deus Ex, therefore maybe a lot of forum users are going to be really disappointed by Deus Ex 3.


The story was good, however, the game wasn't just the story, it was the way it presented itself to you. Deus Ex offered a player a vivid, living world where rather than play a character you were the character.
It accomplished this in part through the story-telling and general make-up of JC, as a blank slate that the player could shape at will and in part through an open multi-path gameplay that allowed a player to explore as much or as little creativity in problem solving as he wanted to.
Rather than choke the player up with pre-made choices, it allowed you so much freedom in your approaches that it sometimes ended up with the illusion that the story wasn't linear.

To this end it encouraged stealth, exploration, socialisation, investigation and sometimes combat, but it encouraged those on your own terms.

As far as we know, DX:HR might or might not offer you the same, however the potencial for it to fail in that sense is there.
To give you two quick examples:
No matter how low your health is, regen health will enforce it's own pace into advancing one area of the game/story through combat and cheapen the long-term risk of said combat, trivialising it to stage-like areas. This does not help a good story, since it creates a break in the normal flow of the progression.
3rd person cinematics in critical junctions will break the 4th wall, forcing you to watch your character witness a dialogue between two important characters rather than making you believe you are the character witnessing the dialogue. This is detrimental to the story.

DX was good because of the story and because of how pulled into it you were, so far we still have no proof at all DX:HR's story will even be of the same quality despite the rich and promising setting and some of us are afraid that the gameplay decisions will be detrimental towards immersion in that same story.



Before you try to preach who is and who is not a DX fan, keep in mind that DX was a mesh up of several very different things that worked right (and some that didn't), isolating the story as the single most important thing might be fine in your book, but for others it isn't and it doesn't make them any less fans of the game.
In fact I'm starting to suspect that you're the one missing the big picture and in fact some of the people who you criticise are far bigger fans than you.

Dead-Eye
18th Oct 2010, 18:55
The fact is that the games of the past were never really that complex...

lol. Right because System Shock 1&2, Homeworld, Thief, Ultama are not nearly as complex as Gears Of War or Bioshock... :rasp:

GepardenK
18th Oct 2010, 19:19
Gotta agree with Ashpolt and FrankCSIS here, who got the idea that storytelling in games have become more sophisticated? Lets remember for a moment that there was a time when games like Grim Fandango, Riven and Homeworld was mainstream games. They were amongst the AAA titles of their time. Even less successful titles like Thief, Planescape and Freespace 2 had good storytelling down to their roots.

Today this is mostly forgotten. But I agree very much with FrankCSIS when he points out that production values have improved considerably, and with it the art of making game storytelling like animated movies. I don’t approve of this, although I must admit that there is at least some entertainment to be had in this kind of storytelling. That’s why "stories" like Mass Effect and Starcraft 2 actually are watchable at all: high production values. Yes, you always end up wanting to see the rest of the story; but lets be honest here: compared to good storytelling this is embarrassing entertainment. Like a B-series from the Sci-fi channel, made in house; at the directors expense

There is a reason why a game like Pshyconauts, which looks like (and to some extend is) a simple kids game, has a far better story to tell than that of Starcraft 2. No matter how many authors blizzard pays to work on their lore. (that’s no disrespect to starcraft 2 as a game, awesome MP as always. Even SP was good due to clever missions).

As for Bioshock, is it really hailed as the gem of today’s storytelling? (Just asking since people seem to bring it up)
Sure the setting was new, to gaming at least.
and yes, the twist was sort of a funny gag at how games work.
But the story itself, and the stupid ending, didn’t really impress me at all. Actually I was very disappointed about halfway through the game, simply because the initial atmosphere was so amazing, but the storytelling just couldn’t hold up....

JCpies
18th Oct 2010, 19:20
lol. Right because System Shock 1&2, Homeworld, Thief, Ultama are not nearly as complex as Gears Of War or Bioshock... :rasp:

No, he's right, I couldn't find ammo anywhere In call of duty 4... they must be hidden somewhere, but to make it worse you can't open cupboards. It took me forever, and I'm still looking.

Fluffis
18th Oct 2010, 19:28
lol. Right because System Shock 1&2, Homeworld, Thief, Ultama are not nearly as complex as Gears Of War or Bioshock... :rasp:

I'd actually argue that a game like Ninja Gaiden (1988) is more complex than most things that come out now. Story-wise that is.


No, he's right, I couldn't find ammo anywhere In call of duty 4... they must be hidden somewhere, but to make it worse you can't open cupboards. It took me forever, and I'm still looking.

:lol:

Nice one.

sonicsidewinder
18th Oct 2010, 23:45
The fact is that the games of the past were never really that complex...

Fact proven in the book of gaming fact? Cus i aint seen it in there.

Just took a quick glance to the mega drive shelf. Name-dropping now...

Jungle Strike - Complex for a console game. managing fuel, ammo and armour. HARD. Could never do the snow level. :mad2:

Phantasy Star 3 - A hell lot more complex than most modern JRPGs. Story-wise + Gameplay-wise.

Echo the Dolphin - The story to that game puzzles me even now.

And there are many others.

Console's asside, the PC bred this complexity you bash.

Cronstintein
19th Oct 2010, 00:15
Aw man, homeworld had such an amazing story/atmosphere, I loved it.

And no one put up my favorite, x-com ufo! Woo, that game was amazingly deep and complex. Though it didn't have cutscenes so I guess the story wasn't up to todays grown-up standards ;)

Tverdyj
19th Oct 2010, 01:07
Aw man, homeworld had such an amazing story/atmosphere, I loved it.

And no one put up my favorite, x-com ufo! Woo, that game was amazingly deep and complex. Though it didn't have cutscenes so I guess the story wasn't up to todays grown-up standards ;)

that game was all about the gameplay. it spawned so many things in today's gaming that I don't know where to begin.
Alas, I have found out a few days ago that my UFO installer is incompatible with a 64-bit OS..... :(

[FGS]Shadowrunner
19th Oct 2010, 01:29
Once again, you take a pot-shot at a very big number of people, for no reason and with no justification.

wow, I was speaking generally about no-one in particular, in reference to comments by admins that people were being negative sometimes, but you have singled out a particular person and wrote a complete essay which couldn't be further from the topic title...

Cronstintein
19th Oct 2010, 01:45
My dream game would be a remake of xcom ufo with the combat system from frozen synapse (simultaneous turn based). God that would be amazing.
It had layer upon layer of different strategy elements, I haven't seen anything even close. Which is sad since it's been like 20 years :/

That game needs a very gentle remake with just a slight update in the combat area but leave the rest alone. The upcoming sequel makes me very sad for the poor children who don't realize what a gem the original was.

dixieflatline
19th Oct 2010, 01:48
sry double post

dixieflatline
19th Oct 2010, 01:52
(kud13, or anyone wanting to play XCOM again: Consider UFO Extraterristals Gold. It is pretty much a remake of UFO, with some added pro's and con's, and slightly different enough that I think most people would enjoy trying it out more than replaying the first game, not even mentioning the easier time you'll have running it, and the better it looks. )

Ya I don't think anyone can say story telling has improved in gaming remarkably over the last decade or so. I would presume who ever says that is probably a newer/younger gamer. You could certainly argue though (and maybe this what some people mean to say) is that video games stories have become more cinematic,and film-like production wise, in their delivery.

I'm somewhat conflicted at Human Revolution. To be honest, it'll probably be the only game I'll by in the next 6 months (maybe a year), and I'm really, really looking forward to it.

On the other hand, I'm really disappointed that they dev team didn't take more risks with the game. I guess you can't fault them (EM seems to be doing a great job), but its just the way the game industry is now a days, for the majority of studios. Gaming is such big buisness that big games have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Better to make a cookie-cutter game that appeals to 80% of the market say, then possibly make a hardcore game, or innovative game, that only appeals to a smaller core audience. (I think this will change, and this will eventually lead to a losing interest in games, because so many games are so similiar, but for now, that seems to be how it goes.)

Really: is there one single innovation in Deus Ex: Human Revolution? I'm being sincere here, and I don't mean this as an inflammatory statement. The mini-games for the hacking maybe? I suppose, because they will probably be unique to Hu-Rev' -- but that's even a stretch.

I'm really looking forward to the game. I think it'll be great. But ya though, it does bother me a bit the Deus Ex was such a ground breaking, amazing design of game, whereas Human Rev, it seems to me, that they are just sort of following all the standard gaming trends, and to the point of not even matching the qualities (that I enjoy) of a game that is now 10 years old.

FlyingDove
19th Oct 2010, 02:11
(kud13, or anyone wanting to play XCOM again: Consider UFO Extraterristals Gold. It is pretty much a remake of UFO, with some added pro's and con's, and slightly different enough that I think most people would enjoy trying it out more than replaying the first game, not even mentioning the easier time you'll have running it, and the better it looks. )

Ya I don't think anyone can say story telling has improved in gaming remarkably over the last decade or so. I would presume who ever says that is probably a newer/younger gamer. You could certainly argue though (and maybe this what some people mean to say) is that video games stories have become more cinematic,and film-like production wise, in their delivery.

I'm somewhat conflicted at Human Revolution. To be honest, it'll probably be the only game I'll by in the next 6 months (maybe a year), and I'm really, really looking forward to it.

On the other hand, I'm really disappointed that they dev team didn't take more risks with the game. I guess you can't fault them (EM seems to be doing a great job), but its just the way the game industry is now a days, for the majority of studios. Gaming is such big buisness that big games have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Better to make a cookie-cutter game that appeals to 80% of the market say, then possibly make a hardcore game, or innovative game, that only appeals to a smaller core audience. (I think this will change, and this will eventually lead to a losing interest in games, because so many games are so similiar, but for now, that seems to be how it goes.)

Really: is there one single innovation in Deus Ex: Human Revolution? I'm being sincere here, and I don't mean this as an inflammatory statement. The mini-games for the hacking maybe? I suppose, because they will probably be unique to Hu-Rev' -- but that's even a stretch.

I'm really looking forward to the game. I think it'll be great. But ya though, it does bother me a bit the Deus Ex was such a ground breaking, amazing design of game, whereas Human Rev, it seems to me, that they are just sort of following all the standard gaming trends, and to the point of not even matching the qualities (that I enjoy) of a game that is now 10 years old.
It's true that this isn't the most groundbreaking game to come around. Games like Ultima attempted an open-world experience, with complex narrative and gameplay long before many of today's most popular examples. There was also Elite from 1984, which was the first true open-world game, which had a profound influence on games like GTA, Driver, etc. MazeWar, dating back to the year 1974, could be considered the first true FPS game, even predating Castle Wolfenstein itself. Yes, we've had games like this for over 40 years, but it is comforting to know that we're finally getting around to see them go mainstream.

Human Revolution isn't extremely innovative, but then so isn't Crysis 2, Halo: Reach, Gears of War 3, ME2, or The Last Guardian. Most of the ideas like nonlinearity have been long ago dreamed up, as has voice recognition, which is still in its early stages as well. And I find voice recognition as possibly the next true step for innovating and maturing this industry. With very complex conversational systems, we'll be able to go way beyond just violence as one of the only forms of interactivity in games.

As Chris Crawford, put it from his book, Chris Crawford on Game Design, and similarly in his Dragon Speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymu4A9861Ck&feature=related) (starting at 4:17):


I dreamed of the day when computer games would be a viable medium of artistic expression — an art form. I dreamed of computer games expressing the full breadth of human experience and emotion. I dreamed of computer games that were tragedies, games about duty and honor, self-sacrifice and patriotism. I dreamed of satirical games and political games; games about the passionate love between a boy and girl, and the serene and mature love of a husband and wife of decades; games about a boy becoming a man, and a man realizing that he is no longer young. I dreamed of games about a man facing truth on a dusty main street at high noon, and a boy and his dog, and a prostitute with a heart of gold.

FrankCSIS
19th Oct 2010, 03:29
You know, this quote...Has there ever been an actual coming of age type of game ever written? They're common place in litterature and movies, but I really can't think of one gaming example.

Pinky_Powers
19th Oct 2010, 03:32
You know, this quote...Has there ever been an actual coming of age type of game ever written? They're common place in litterature and movies, but I really can't think of one gaming example.

Duke Nukem 3D...

ricwhite
19th Oct 2010, 03:33
This leader didn't have much positive to say about DX3

http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/HitlerDeusExSubtitles10.wmv

Pinky_Powers
19th Oct 2010, 03:40
This leader didn't have much positive to say about DX3

http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent/movies/HitlerDeusExSubtitles10.wmv

To be fair, I think the transcriber got a few of the words wrong.

German can be a difficult language to translate.

dixieflatline
19th Oct 2010, 03:47
Thanks for the quote Flying Dove, I like that.

About the lack of innovation, I don't even mean to say that Human Revolution should try to make a new genre or anything (though that would be nice :) ) . I mean even minor, small innovation. Like for example, a body damage with reactive local damage considerations, like for example, where your vision gets poor if you are shot in the head, or you walk for a limp if you get hit big time in one of your legs. Both legs get taken out, you have to crawl.

Or maybe, this is a cyberpunk game, so it would be super cool if you could 'download' (in game) your character into different bodies in the game. So you could play as a woman one level, for instance, if you are going for a social angle in your play style. You can decide whether to buy augs or save up for totally new bodies to use .

Or maybe, EM takes the plunge and allocates 0.05% of the game's budget towards optimizing the game to actually work well with Nvidia's Vision 3d Glasses (which I have used and aren't bad but games aren't generally made to make use of them).

Or maybe, each level they randomize the weapon placement. Okay so that might make game balance a bit tough. Okay so maybe randomize the turret / camera / extra agent placement / in hard difficulty mode, so you have to actually pay closer attention if you are playing a second time through.

Just little stuff. Anything that's different. If I can just come up with those of the top of my head, I can't understand why a full-time career game designer could not at least come up with one thing.

My question still bothers me: does Deus Ex Human Revolution have one single innovation in design that hasn't been copied from another game?

dixieflatline
19th Oct 2010, 04:04
You know, this quote...Has there ever been an actual coming of age type of game ever written? They're common place in litterature and movies, but I really can't think of one gaming example.

Nah there is a couple. Not many, but a few. Here's a really old one
http://www.homeoftheunderdogs.net/game.php?id=43

Alter Ego. Made my Activision back in the '80s.

Dead-Eye
19th Oct 2010, 04:07
My question still bothers me: does Deus Ex Human Revolution have one single innovation in design that hasn't been copied from another game?

Well to be fair you could ask if Dues Ex has one single new conspiracy that someone hasn't thought up before? It's the way the elements work together that make's something unique. Or to put that another way the social interaction may have been tried before but, from what I have seen, it looks like the elements have small changes and enough personal touches for me to say it's unique and possibly innovative.

FlyingDove
19th Oct 2010, 04:20
Well to be fair you could ask if Dues Ex has one single new conspiracy that someone hasn't thought up before? It's the way the elements work together that make's something unique. Or to put that another way the social interaction may have been tried before but, from what I have seen, it looks like the elements have small changes and enough personal touches for me to say it's unique and possibly innovative.
One can argue the same thing about the first Deus Ex game's gameplay; it wasn't the first time that we saw elements like stealth, leveling up skills, etc., but how it combined all of those elements is what made it feel fresh. Similarly, Planescape: Torment wasn't that highly original either, other than the fact that it didn't follow a save-the-world plot. The theme of that game was one's own mortality and discovering who he/she is. GTA wasn't the first true attempt at offering weightlifting, pool, bowling, etc., other than the fact that these elements were included as options within its cities. Maxis' The Sims games actually did most of this stuff before Rock* North (and Little Computer People was the game that The Sims follow up to).

Anyways, what good is it to post negative comments about DXHR on these forums if you know that Eidos will likely not follow the original any closer, instead listening to what people like about it? We really can't do much about what happened to franchises like Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six Vegas, Ghost Recon, etc. either. With some luck, we might see similar games in the future, but it might not come from the franchises that originally introduced such concepts.

Quite frankly, I am also not that impressed with most of today's games anymore, but I am trying hard to not think too much about it by turning to many classic and original ones. In that sense, I see where everyone here is going with this discussion. Even the thought of huge franchises like GTA ceasing to be as creative is what scares me. After all, GTA IV wasn't really that impressive at all in what it did. The only new things that it added were better graphics and physics, a cover system, and online multiplayer, as well as a better storyline. Therefore, it isn't silly to say that it was overrated. A lot of the games that were recently released (in the past 10 years) were overrated, not just Bioshock, but even COD4, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario Galaxy, Uncharted 2, etc. They did not do anything remotely different from the rest of the games out at the time. Everything is derivative.

pringlepower
19th Oct 2010, 05:37
Well to be fair you could ask if Dues Ex has one single new conspiracy that someone hasn't thought up before? It's the way the elements work together that make's something unique. Or to put that another way the social interaction may have been tried before but, from what I have seen, it looks like the elements have small changes and enough personal touches for me to say it's unique and possibly innovative.

Well to be fair while DXHR pulls cover, blind-fire, health regen, etc. from other popular titles, perhaps it will be the first game to successful mix those elements, along with stealth, augmentations, and free-exploration/choice-based gameplay to make a salad of amazingness.


One argue the same thing about the first Deus Ex game's gameplay; it wasn't the first time that we saw elements like stealth, leveling up skills, etc., but how it combined all of those elements is what made it feel fresh. Similarly, Planescape: Torment wasn't that highly original either, other than the fact that it didn't follow a save-the-world plot. The theme of that game was one's own mortality and discovering who he/she is. GTA wasn't the first true attempt at offering weightlifting, pool, bowling, etc., other than the fact that these elements were included as options within its cities. Maxis' The Sims games actually did most of this stuff before Rock* North (and Little Computer People was the game that The Sims follow up to).

Anyways, what good is it to post negative comments about DXHR on these forums if you know that Eidos will likely not follow the original any closer, instead listening to what people like about it? We really can't do much about what happened to franchises like Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six Vegas, Ghost Recon, etc. either. With some luck, we might see similar games in the future, but it might not come from the franchises that originally introduced such concepts.

Quite frankly, I am also not that impressed with most of today's games anymore, but I am trying hard to not think too much about it by turning to many classic and original ones. In that sense, I see where everyone here is going with this discussion. Even the thought of huge franchises like GTA ceasing to be as creative is what scares me. After all, GTA IV wasn't really that impressive at all in what it did. The only new things that it added were better graphics and physics, a cover system, and online multiplayer, as well as a better storyline. Therefore, it isn't silly to say that it was overrated. A lot of the games that were recently released (in the past 10 years) were overrated, not just Bioshock, but even COD4, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario Galaxy, Uncharted 2, etc. They did not do anything remotely different from the rest of the games out at the time. Everything is derivative.

If GTA IV adding better graphics, physics, cover, online multiplayer, and a better storyline don't impress you, your standards are too high (not to mention a more detailed world, huge amounts of extra media - radio, internet, TV, etc.) Those being your own words. I mean revered sequels such as Fallout 2 didn't even touch the engine. Whether it deserved the perfect scores is debatable but ultimately GTA IV is a good game, and advanced many elements from the previous generation.

Likewise not all games have to be revolutionary. COD 4 and Starcraft II are examples of games that stuck to the tried-and-true principles, and refined them as much as they could, delivering a finely-tuned, balanced, and polished product (saying CoD 4 is good on these forums might draw death threats but I stand by it. It's not a cerebral as DX, but then again not every game has to be).

Likewise I think Mario Galaxy is an example of the sort of sequel people want from DXHR. It sticks to the fundamental principles: jumping, collecting coins, snacking on mushrooms and wearing funny suits, and adds modern technology and innovative gameplay, such as the gravitational bodies concept. And again, it refines that formula so the levels are well-designed, and just darn fun to play.

FlyingDove
19th Oct 2010, 13:36
Well to be fair while DXHR pulls cover, blind-fire, health regen, etc. from other popular titles, perhaps it will be the first game to successful mix those elements, along with stealth, augmentations, and free-exploration/choice-based gameplay to make a salad of amazingness.



If GTA IV adding better graphics, physics, cover, online multiplayer, and a better storyline don't impress you, your standards are too high (not to mention a more detailed world, huge amounts of extra media - radio, internet, TV, etc.) Those being your own words. I mean revered sequels such as Fallout 2 didn't even touch the engine. Whether it deserved the perfect scores is debatable but ultimately GTA IV is a good game, and advanced many elements from the previous generation.

Likewise not all games have to be revolutionary. COD 4 and Starcraft II are examples of games that stuck to the tried-and-true principles, and refined them as much as they could, delivering a finely-tuned, balanced, and polished product (saying CoD 4 is good on these forums might draw death threats but I stand by it. It's not a cerebral as DX, but then again not every game has to be).

Likewise I think Mario Galaxy is an example of the sort of sequel people want from DXHR. It sticks to the fundamental principles: jumping, collecting coins, snacking on mushrooms and wearing funny suits, and adds modern technology and innovative gameplay, such as the gravitational bodies concept. And again, it refines that formula so the levels are well-designed, and just darn fun to play.
Well, I think that GTA: SA was perhaps the better game, at least in terms of how many new features it introduced for the GTA franchise, even though I didn't particularly find those simulation and RPG elements that fun. What I am getting at is the fact that it looks like every other GTA game will be just a rehash of the older ones. There aren't that many more new directions to explore, other than maybe finally coming around to offer nonlinear missions in an open world, instead of the linear fashion that we typically get. And it kind of makes sense to do that because people want as much replayability as possible. Co-op could be one other new direction for them, but beyond that, I don't see much of the GTA formula being changed up anymore. It will be mostly about milking cash and nothing more.

And it is simply an opinion to call a game very good or bad. Sure, most game critics have given COD4 and GTA IV really high scores, but we sometimes might disagree with the majority, and what's wrong with that, honestly? Do you like every game that scored highly on GameRankings.com, especially if it's in the greatest of all time list? One can argue that many games today are marketed very well, even to the point where game critics are paid good money to praise them highly.

Going back to what I said about the future of this industry, even more recent text parser games like Facade are a step forward, by implementing a better form of procedurally generated characters that are believable. While I want games to expand to more genres, like offering a lot of romantic and comedic elements, I'm not going to have unrealistic expectations and expect it to happen very soon. I am concentrating more on what games are doing that is similar to those long, forgotten, classics and perhaps what is even necessary. Some more recent titles like Dwarf Fortress are actually doing justice as well.

jcd3nt0n
19th Oct 2010, 15:53
I hope that my Deus Ex Human Revolution playtime will go over nine thousand hours

:thumb::thumbsup::thumb::thumbsup::thumb: