PDA

View Full Version : Warren Spector on Human Revolution: "I screamed at the television as I played"



SDF121
21st Mar 2012, 01:34
source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-03-16-warren-spector-on-deus-ex-human-revolution-i-screamed-at-the-television-as-i-played

As much as he enjoyed the newest take on the franchise, Spector was also equally fascinated and frustrated by certain design choices Eidos Montreal made.

“I screamed at the television as I played this game. I loved the game at the end of the day, but I screamed constantly because there were two, three, four things they did where I just said ‘Nooooo, why did you this? Noooo!’, and it wasn’t that it was right or wrong, it was different than what I expected.”

TheYouthCounselor
21st Mar 2012, 02:53
I would really love to know Spector's full thoughts in a more in depth interview, article, or essay.

He screamed at the television? Does that mean he played a console version? (I know I've plugged PCs into TVs to play games many times before but it is a little cumbersome.

Pinky_Powers
21st Mar 2012, 03:21
He screamed at the television? Does that mean he played a console version?

What do you think? His last game didn't even come out on PC.

TheYouthCounselor
21st Mar 2012, 03:34
What do you think? His last game didn't even come out on PC.

It was only for the Wii because of the motion controls required. At the time, the Wii was the only one with motion controls on the market.

SDF121
21st Mar 2012, 03:47
I would really love to know Spector's full thoughts in a more in depth interview, article, or essay.

He screamed at the television? Does that mean he played a console version? (I know I've plugged PCs into TVs to play games many times before but it is a little cumbersome.

I remember reading an interview a while back where he expressed his disappointment that Human Revolution would be utilizing several third person mechanics but I'm not sure what his other concerns may have been. Hopefully he gets around to writing that article on the differences between Deus Ex and Human Revolution that he suggests he may one day write. I would also be interested to see if his spiritual successor to Deus Ex would ever come to see the light of day.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/11/03/spector-tried-to-acquire-deus-ex/

OMGITSJASON
21st Mar 2012, 05:08
I didn't scream or yell at the TV once during my play-through which was on "This is Deus Ex" difficulty. My first ever playthrough to boot.

Tverdyj
21st Mar 2012, 05:24
i didn't scream at my laptop. But I did groan in frustration a few times.

Especially the time I spent about 20 minutes chucking boxes to solve a physics-based problem.

Zerim
21st Mar 2012, 08:47
It's very understandable for him to get worked up and emotional while playing the game. Deus Ex is his baby, after all. He would want EM to do a hell of a good job with it.

I always thought Spector would be mostly proud of Human Revolution. The game is VERY loyal to the original (I'd say this is the most loyal sequel done by another team in any franchise), the world they created is absolutely amazing, and it retains most of Spector's design choices and core game philosophies pretty well.

Romeo
21st Mar 2012, 19:50
Aye, of all the "modern interpretation" games these days, I'd say Deus Ex: Human Revolution was far and away the most loyal. That being said, I too hated a few design decisions made.

JCpies
21st Mar 2012, 21:10
Warren, come back for Deus Ex 4. I'm sure Epic Mickey is a good game, but you have a higher place in heaven.

Ashpolt
21st Mar 2012, 21:21
The game is VERY loyal to the original (I'd say this is the most loyal sequel done by another team in any franchise), the world they created is absolutely amazing, and it retains most of Spector's design choices and core game philosophies pretty well.


Aye, of all the "modern interpretation" games these days, I'd say Deus Ex: Human Revolution was far and away the most loyal. That being said, I too hated a few design decisions made.

What about the non-Infinity Ward Call of Duties? Or the non-Core Tomb Raider games? How about The Darkness II? There are plenty of properly loyal sequels out there which were not made by the original developers, you just tend to forget about it when the games are actually loyal. DXHR is nowhere near "the most loyal sequel done by another team in any franchise." It's arguably "the most loyal sequel where you'd actually expect the team to screw up due to the pressures of the modern games market" (though I'd hold out for XCOM: Enemy Unknown to take that crown) but that's damning by faint praise.

Pinky_Powers
21st Mar 2012, 22:33
It was only for the Wii because of the motion controls required. At the time, the Wii was the only one with motion controls on the market.

Nope. Any game, including Epic Mickey, can work just fine with more traditional controllers. And Spector most certainly could have pushed for that. But he didn't because he's doesn't care about that or PC gaming.

As you may see, I'm still angry that I never got a chance to play Epic Mickey. :)

Jerion
21st Mar 2012, 23:16
Nope. Any game, including Epic Mickey, can work just fine with more traditional controllers. And Spector most certainly could have pushed for that. But he didn't because he's doesn't care about that or PC gaming.

As you may see, I'm still angry that I never got a chance to play Epic Mickey. :)

If I were him, I wouldn't particularly care about PC gaming either. The PC's advantages are primarily technical, and IIRC he's never been all that interested in pushing the graphics envelope. As far as gameplay is concerned consoles do have unique possibilities (Kinect, motion controls) that simply are not widespread in or easily available for the PC gaming userbase. If he's interested in taking advantage of those possibilities, I'm certainly not going to hold it against him. Each platform has strengths, and I'm more interested in seeing what he does with those strengths than having him pander to my platform of choice.

I didn't play Epic Mickey either, but as I understand it, it was mostly designed around the use of motion controls. Sure, you could use it without them, but that might just miss the point. It would be somewhat analogous to...oh, I dunno, putting a 20" display in a laptop.

Pinky_Powers
22nd Mar 2012, 00:39
and I'm more interested in seeing what he does with those strengths than having him pander to my platform of choice.

I would like to play his games.

Jerion
22nd Mar 2012, 02:10
I would like to play his games.

As would I.

Romeo
22nd Mar 2012, 06:57
What about the non-Infinity Ward Call of Duties? Or the non-Core Tomb Raider games? How about The Darkness II? There are plenty of properly loyal sequels out there which were not made by the original developers, you just tend to forget about it when the games are actually loyal. DXHR is nowhere near "the most loyal sequel done by another team in any franchise." It's arguably "the most loyal sequel where you'd actually expect the team to screw up due to the pressures of the modern games market" (though I'd hold out for XCOM: Enemy Unknown to take that crown) but that's damning by faint praise.
Well, you'll notice I didn't say sequel now did I? Because obviously a sequel is going to be similar to the original. I said "modern interpretation", meaning games like DX:HR, the new Goldeneye, the new Duke Nukem, etc... Of those types of games, you'll notice DX:HR feels much closer to the core material than they do.

Besides that, while there were some blatent gameplay differences, the overall game still felt very similar to the originals to me - even when compared to direct sequels (Or "updates", in Call of Duty's case).

Zerim
22nd Mar 2012, 09:28
Well, you'll notice I didn't say sequel now did I? Because obviously a sequel is going to be similar to the original. I said "modern interpretation", meaning games like DX:HR, the new Goldeneye, the new Duke Nukem, etc... Of those types of games, you'll notice DX:HR feels much closer to the core material than they do.

Besides that, while there were some blatent gameplay differences, the overall game still felt very similar to the originals to me - even when compared to direct sequels (Or "updates", in Call of Duty's case).

Yeah, good points, and you're right Ashpolt, I think I should've worded my thoughts differently. I'll second Romeo, it would be more accurate to say "modern interpretation" instead of "sequel". Would you agree with that?

And the new Tomb Raiders suck, dude. :(

JCpies
22nd Mar 2012, 15:59
Don't worry guys, Deus Ex Revision is coming.

Ashpolt
23rd Mar 2012, 02:30
Well, you'll notice I didn't say sequel now did I? Because obviously a sequel is going to be similar to the original. I said "modern interpretation", meaning games like DX:HR, the new Goldeneye, the new Duke Nukem, etc... Of those types of games, you'll notice DX:HR feels much closer to the core material than they do.

Besides that, while there were some blatent gameplay differences, the overall game still felt very similar to the originals to me - even when compared to direct sequels (Or "updates", in Call of Duty's case).


Yeah, good points, and you're right Ashpolt, I think I should've worded my thoughts differently. I'll second Romeo, it would be more accurate to say "modern interpretation" instead of "sequel". Would you agree with that?

I don't see distinction. A "modern interpretation" is still a sequel (or, in this case prequel). In the context of this discussion, the phrase "modern interpretation" is just being used as an excuse for not being a properly faithful sequel - so if you phrase it like that, you're putting it in such a way that praise becomes almost tautological. You're saying, essentially, "yeah, I don't mean games like that, I mean games like this" - where "this" is a field specifically composed of not-very-faithful sequels. Again, damning with faint praise.

And again, I fully expect XCOM: Enemy Unknown will take even that dubious title away from DXHR.

Don't get me wrong, I still think DXHR is great, and I'll look forward to any sequels with great interest (and much less scepticism, unless they do something really stupid) but it's by no means a commendably faithful successor. It's "better than expected considering most modern games companies suck", but that's hardly a compliment.

HERESY
23rd Mar 2012, 03:20
DX:HR is the future and Spector needs to accept it. There are things in the original that he would want to change, if given the chance, but he should be happy that people liked the IP enough to even develop a new game based on it.

Romeo
23rd Mar 2012, 04:12
I don't see distinction. A "modern interpretation" is still a sequel (or, in this case prequel). In the context of this discussion, the phrase "modern interpretation" is just being used as an excuse for not being a properly faithful sequel - so if you phrase it like that, you're putting it in such a way that praise becomes almost tautological. You're saying, essentially, "yeah, I don't mean games like that, I mean games like this" - where "this" is a field specifically composed of not-very-faithful sequels. Again, damning with faint praise.

And again, I fully expect XCOM: Enemy Unknown will take even that dubious title away from DXHR.

Don't get me wrong, I still think DXHR is great, and I'll look forward to any sequels with great interest (and much less scepticism, unless they do something really stupid) but it's by no means a commendably faithful successor. It's "better than expected considering most modern games companies suck", but that's hardly a compliment.
I don't consider them sequels, not in the standard sense. A modern interpretation is often the distinction of a reboot (Batman Begins compared to the old Batman and Robin films) as opposed to a direct continuation of it (The Dark Knight as compared to Batman Begins). If you're looking at a new interpretation, you don't really know what to expect of it, apart from the established story. But how it goes about that may be entirely different. As in the above example, apart from the fact they're both Batman movies, Batman Begins and Batman and Robin have almost nothing in common with one another - ones dark and gritty, and the other borders on slapstick. If you compare the original Goldeneye to the new Goldeneye, they're very, very different games. Sure, they have the same (relative) story and setting, but the original was a far more punitive game, whereas the new one feels almost arcadey in comparison. If you compare that pair to Deus Ex, Human Revolution starts looking extremely faithful. Compared to every other reboot, Human Revolution is still the most faithful.

You're trying to oversimplify things, and you know it.

DX:HR is the future and Spector needs to accept it. There are things in the original that he would want to change, if given the chance, but he should be happy that people liked the IP enough to even develop a new game based on it.
I'm aware this opinion is going to get me yelled at, but I've always found Spector to be a little too full of himself. He had some amazing games, yes, but he's far from the mega-develloper he used to be. His opinion isn't the "always right" answer he seems to assume these days.

Mustapha Mond
23rd Mar 2012, 05:50
I've gotta agree with the modern interpretation theory. The first thing I noticed about HR was how much it felt like Deus Ex. I hadn't played the original in almost 10 years, and I've killed lots of brain cells in the interim. As I was playing through HR, I was inundated with memories of old missions from Deus Ex. To me, that's pretty amazing. My memory is awful. :p

For all of its faults, HR is a great game. Much like the original, I'd find myself getting sucked into it and playing it for 10+ hours straight. I didn't have a problem with oscillating between first and third perspective; I thought it worked well within the context, and it didn't break my sense of immersion. *shrug* My only true complaint was how the ending and the Panchaea level were handled. But given time and money constraints, it's perfectly understandable. It didn't ultimately detract from my overall experience.

As for Mr. Spector's reaction, yeah, it's hard to be objective. At least he praised it, though. It could've been a lot worse, but HR is a fantastic game. It certainly didn't besmirch the franchise's reputation like IW did, as much as I hate to say it.


I'm aware this opinion is going to get me yelled at, but I've always found Spector to be a little too full of himself. He had some amazing games, yes, but he's far from the mega-develloper he used to be. His opinion isn't the "always right" answer he seems to assume these days.

I agree to a certain extent. I can't say anything about the guy's egoism, but he has become less relevant. Thief, System Shock, and Deus Ex are, in my opinion, some of the best IPs in the gaming industry. But...since then? I don't know. I have yet to play Epic Mickey, but apparently it was subpar by comparison. He did do a lot of innovative work back in the day. I think he's still lauded because of the fact that he was such a pioneer in the late 90s/early 00s, and deservedly so. I'm no expert, and I could be completely wrong, but it doesn't seem like he's done much lately that would warrant his continued demi-god status.

xaduha
23rd Mar 2012, 05:59
Still, Warren Spector has to whisper just one word, if he's up to something and needs funding.
'Kickstarter'

Ilves
23rd Mar 2012, 09:25
Don't worry guys, Deus Ex Revision is coming.

:thumb::thumb::thumb:


He had some amazing games, yes, but he's far from the mega-develloper he used to be. His opinion isn't the "always right" answer he seems to assume these days.

I absolutely love listening to Spector theorizing about game systems. Then you look at his produce over the past decade and there's really nothing there to back it up. :(

SageSavage
23rd Mar 2012, 11:34
Someone's got to tell Warren that "the industry as a whole has grown up!" and then poke him a little bit with a stick for bonus fun... :poke:

Darthassin
23rd Mar 2012, 19:33
Refering to what Warren said about 2,3 or 4 things he screamed at... I think it might be connected with story decisions - in particular - cutscenes.

My personal 4 things I "screamed" at:

-First meeting with Zao - I wanted to cut her face on a million pieces and make myself a puzzle, but Adam made himself look like a fool when he let her trick himself.

-Zombie motive - dissaster - no over comment needed.

-Shooting to Zao at the end and activating security turrents in the cutscene. Again - Adam looks there like a fool.

-4 buttons at the end.

Also what really bugs me throught the game is dramatically "underdeveloped" boss characters .

Tverdyj
23rd Mar 2012, 19:45
DX:HR is the future and Spector needs to accept it. There are things in the original that he would want to change, if given the chance, but he should be happy that people liked the IP enough to even develop a new game based on it.

if cinematic takedowns and health regen are the future of First Person Immersion Sims, we have a problem.

TrickyVein
23rd Mar 2012, 19:53
if cinematic takedowns and health regen are the future of First Person Immersion Sims, we have a problem.

LOL

*Cough* Skyrim *cough*

Ashpolt
23rd Mar 2012, 20:12
I don't consider them sequels, not in the standard sense. A modern interpretation is often the distinction of a reboot (Batman Begins compared to the old Batman and Robin films) as opposed to a direct continuation of it (The Dark Knight as compared to Batman Begins). If you're looking at a new interpretation, you don't really know what to expect of it, apart from the established story. But how it goes about that may be entirely different. As in the above example, apart from the fact they're both Batman movies, Batman Begins and Batman and Robin have almost nothing in common with one another - ones dark and gritty, and the other borders on slapstick. If you compare the original Goldeneye to the new Goldeneye, they're very, very different games. Sure, they have the same (relative) story and setting, but the original was a far more punitive game, whereas the new one feels almost arcadey in comparison. If you compare that pair to Deus Ex, Human Revolution starts looking extremely faithful. Compared to every other reboot, Human Revolution is still the most faithful.

No, I'm really not. "Modern interpretation" is just another way of saying "we're doing things differently" - otherwise you'd just call it a sequel / prequel / whatever (in this case of course, as with many cases, it's both.) So if you're saying it's a "modern interpretation" you are, by definition, saying it's not being properly faithful, and using the term as a catch-all crutch to explain / "justify" the changes. So, again, saying DXHR is the "most faithful modern interpretation" may be true, but so what? You're just saying that it's the best of a bad bunch.


Still, Warren Spector has to whisper just one word, if he's up to something and needs funding.
'Kickstarter'

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0zogu4bin1qdtrk1.jpg

Seriously, all he'd need to do would be to say "I'm making a first person immersive sim with a small but talented team." I wouldn't need anything else to convince me to part with my cash.

Zerim
23rd Mar 2012, 20:17
if cinematic takedowns and health regen are the future of First Person Immersion Sims, we have a problem.
Exactly.

Stuff like takedowns and health regen aren't really too important though. Sure, they absoltely suck, but they are simple design choices, really, and can be switched with other things pretty easily. They're just there to make games easier for casuals. The real "issue" is the competition between immersive sims and "cinematic experiences".

If video gaming is going to stand up as an art form, it has to separate itself from cinema. Nowadays most developers let go of immersion and simulation in favor of creating "cinematic experiences". But immersion and simulation are exactly what make video games unique.

Movies can already do good narrative, music, acting, action, etc.

Gaming isn't necessarily about those things. They are the elements of an experience, sure, but they are not what make video gaming unique.

Being able to take CONTROL of the experience is.

When you have games like Uncharted where essentially all you do is follow a super-linear path, from one cutscene to the next, using essentially CINEMA to tell the story, being accepted among the greatest games of the year, you have a problem.

Gaming is not about watching characters do things as you stare at them. Gaming is about BEING the character, TAKING control, and DECIDING what YOU want to do in this story.

Devs that want to make "cinematic" experiences should really work in cinema, IMHO.

HERESY
23rd Mar 2012, 20:28
if cinematic takedowns and health regen are the future of First Person Immersion Sims, we have a problem.

So seeing through boxes, moving objects (bodies included) with phantom limbs and opening doors and crates with phantom limbs is the future of "First Person Immersion Sims?" (Which, btw, is a genre that doesn't exist.)

Those things are archaic yet they are in DX and other first person games. Oh, I can't forget the magical walk over an item and automatically pick it up thing that so many FP games utilize.

Yes, DX:HR is the future. Spector should be happy that people found the IP even worthy of a reboot. And you people need to stop following the guy like he's asome Dalai Lama or sage. He doesn't give a damn about any of you, hell he doesn't even know you exist.

Zerim
23rd Mar 2012, 20:40
Heresy, why do you always sound so angry and negative? More importantly, if you hate Deus Ex so much, why are you even here?


So seeing through boxes, moving objects (bodies included) with phantom limbs and opening doors and crates with phantom limbs is the future of "First Person Immersion Sims?"...
...Those things are archaic yet they are in DX and other first person games. Oh, I can't forget the magical walk over an item and automatically pick it up thing that so many FP games utilize.
I myself don't like those things, but it's not like that's the ONLY way to do first person. Look at Mirror's edge. You open doors and stuff with your hands. Look at Arma. Your entire body is rendered at any time, and it has to perform the actions for them to happen. HR has it's fair share of problems, but it's not like that's the ONLY example of a first person viewpoint, it's just one method amongst many to do the viewpoint.


He doesn't give a damn about any of you, hell he doesn't even know you exist.
I actually e-mail him every once in a while. He reads and answers, and usually comes off as super appreciative of a good intellectual discussion.

HERESY
23rd Mar 2012, 20:58
Heresy, why do you always sound so angry and negative?

I'm not. I'm blunt, honest and straight forward. No sugar coating with me. Maybe you should take a page from my book?


More importantly, if you hate Deus Ex so much, why are you even here?

I'm here because this is the Deus Ex Human Revolution forum. We discuss things related to Deus Ex Human Revolution. Since I purchased Deus Ex Human Revolution, played Deus Ex Human Revolution, completed Deus Ex Human Revolution and post within the guidelines/rules of the company that made Deus Ex Human Revolution, I'm here.

See, liking Deus Ex is not a prerequsite to being here. I like Deus Ex Human Revolution. Keep that in mind when you read my reply.



I myself don't like those things, but it's not like that's the ONLY way to do first person. Look at Mirror's edge. You open doors and stuff with your hands. Look at Arma. Your entire body is rendered at any time, and it has to perform the actions for them to happen. HR has it's fair share of problems, but it's not like that's the ONLY example of a first person viewpoint, it's just one method amongst many to do the viewpoint.

It's the first person example many want to keep. The industry is not moving forward when it comes to first person. How many times do we have to play games where the little red arrow shows you where the enemy is shooting from and that you're taking damage from that enemy/direction? How many games actually change their aiming reticule so that it's different from the FPS you just played a week ago? How many times do we have to walk over an item just to pick it up? My point is, and I'm being honest here, people are praising DX as if it is some masterpiece and light years beyond everything that was released during it's time and presently. Did it set some benchmarks, sure, but don't speak as if this game is the end all. To some of you it is your opinion, but it has not revolutionized anything to the point that the entire industry is copying it.



I actually e-mail him every once in a while. He reads and answers, and usually comes off as super appreciative of a good intellectual discussion.

Good for you and if you ever need to get bailed out of a jam I'm sure he can help you out.

Jerion
23rd Mar 2012, 21:21
Good for you and if you ever need to get bailed out of a jam I'm sure he can help you out.

Come on. You can do better than that kind of snark.

(I'm skimming most of the discussion currently going on in this thread, but this caught my eye)

HERESY
23rd Mar 2012, 21:28
Come on. You can do better than that kind of snark.

(I'm skimming most of the discussion currently going on in this thread, but this caught my eye)

And telling me that he emails the guy does what exactly? How was it useful info? Was it because of what I said about Spector and existence?

Jerion
23rd Mar 2012, 22:04
And telling me that he emails the guy does what exactly? How was it useful info? Was it because of what I said about Spector and existence?

It's open and shut. You say he doesn't know some one/people exist(s), he refutes your assertion. No need to be sarcastic about it.

Romeo
23rd Mar 2012, 22:16
No, I'm really not. "Modern interpretation" is just another way of saying "we're doing things differently" - otherwise you'd just call it a sequel / prequel / whatever (in this case of course, as with many cases, it's both.) So if you're saying it's a "modern interpretation" you are, by definition, saying it's not being properly faithful, and using the term as a catch-all crutch to explain / "justify" the changes. So, again, saying DXHR is the "most faithful modern interpretation" may be true, but so what? You're just saying that it's the best of a bad bunch.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind a modern interpretation of some games. Considering that a sequel to Call of Duty comes out every six months, and changes virtually nothing, whereas a modern interpretation of Deus Ex at least tried to change things, I'd much rather support the latter. Deus Ex was great. But if I want to play the same god damn game, I can play Deus Ex. Differences of opinion I suppose, but you seem to promote stagnation more than anything, in my eyes.

Pinky_Powers
23rd Mar 2012, 23:11
To be honest, I wouldn't mind a modern interpretation of some games. Considering that a sequel to Call of Duty comes out every six months, and changes virtually nothing, whereas a modern interpretation of Deus Ex at least tried to change things, I'd much rather support the latter. Deus Ex was great. But if I want to play the same god damn game, I can play Deus Ex. Differences of opinion I suppose, but you seem to promote stagnation more than anything, in my eyes.

It feels good to see debates and general activity here, doesn't it? I miss this. :)

As to the discussion, I tend to fall more with Romeo here... but not entirely. I think Human Revolution should have stayed closer to Deus Ex on some things, but I'm glad they experimented with others; hacking and conversation battles was simply brilliant. And I do so love the takedowns, though they would have been impossibly more visceral/awesome in first-person.

To cut right to the heart of it, if Eidos had held Immersive Sim as a pillar of the experience, and had kept all their experimentation under that cloak, they would have shown immeasurable wisdom and produced a better game.

Tverdyj
24th Mar 2012, 00:29
So seeing through boxes, moving objects (bodies included) with phantom limbs and opening doors and crates with phantom limbs is the future of "First Person Immersion Sims?" (Which, btw, is a genre that doesn't exist.)

Those things are archaic yet they are in DX and other first person games. Oh, I can't forget the magical walk over an item and automatically pick it up thing that so many FP games utilize.

Yes, DX:HR is the future. Spector should be happy that people found the IP even worthy of a reboot. And you people need to stop following the guy like he's asome Dalai Lama or sage. He doesn't give a damn about any of you, hell he doesn't even know you exist.

Deus Ex, Thief, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Dishonoured, System Shock 1+2, Vampire: the Masquerade: Bloodlines, to a certain extent, TES, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, all off the top of my head

a hefty list for a genre that doesn't exist.....



I'm not. I'm blunt, honest and straight forward. No sugar coating with me. Maybe you should take a page from my book?



I'm here because this is the Deus Ex Human Revolution forum. We discuss things related to Deus Ex Human Revolution. Since I purchased Deus Ex Human Revolution, played Deus Ex Human Revolution, completed Deus Ex Human Revolution and post within the guidelines/rules of the company that made Deus Ex Human Revolution, I'm here.

See, liking Deus Ex is not a prerequsite to being here. I like Deus Ex Human Revolution. Keep that in mind when you read my reply.




It's the first person example many want to keep. The industry is not moving forward when it comes to first person. How many times do we have to play games where the little red arrow shows you where the enemy is shooting from and that you're taking damage from that enemy/direction? How many games actually change their aiming reticule so that it's different from the FPS you just played a week ago? How many times do we have to walk over an item just to pick it up? My point is, and I'm being honest here, people are praising DX as if it is some masterpiece and light years beyond everything that was released during it's time and presently. Did it set some benchmarks, sure, but don't speak as if this game is the end all. To some of you it is your opinion, but it has not revolutionized anything to the point that the entire industry is copying it.




Good for you and if you ever need to get bailed out of a jam I'm sure he can help you out.

sadly, no. casuals liked Halo-like gameplay instead.

Ashpolt
24th Mar 2012, 00:38
To be honest, I wouldn't mind a modern interpretation of some games. Considering that a sequel to Call of Duty comes out every six months, and changes virtually nothing, whereas a modern interpretation of Deus Ex at least tried to change things, I'd much rather support the latter. Deus Ex was great. But if I want to play the same god damn game, I can play Deus Ex. Differences of opinion I suppose, but you seem to promote stagnation more than anything, in my eyes.

It's hard to be stagnant when (in Deus Ex's case) you're in a marketplace of one. It's not like it's had half a dozen properly faithful sequels and a range of "me-too" competitors: it's had one pretty terrible sequel, one good but only averagely faithful one, and one competitor with reasonably similar gameplay but a very different theme. There could be another 2 or 3 games properly faithful Deus Ex sequels before we even get close to "stagnant."

Besides, as I've said more times than I care to count on this forum, asking for a properly faithful successor does not necessarily require stagnation, no matter whether it's the second sequel or the twentieth. You can build on what made a game great, expand and improve, without sacrificing faithfulness. It's when you take away or entirely overhaul gameplay features that you start to be unfaithful.

But this is all off the original point anyway: we weren't talking about the merits of being a faithful sequel or not, we were talking about whether DXHR is one, and specifically whether labelling it as "the most faithful modern interpretation" is just defining it in such a way that it wins by default - making it top of the class by putting it in a class of losers. Your last post didn't touch on that, and so wasn't actually refuting anything I said.


It feels good to see debates and general activity here, doesn't it? I miss this. :)

As to the discussion, I tend to fall more with Romeo here... but not entirely. I think Human Revolution should have stayed closer to Deus Ex on some things, but I'm glad they experimented with others; hacking and conversation battles was simply brilliant. And I do so love the takedowns, though they would have been impossibly more visceral/awesome in first-person.

To cut right to the heart of it, if Eidos had held Immersive Sim as a pillar of the experience, and had kept all their experimentation under that cloak, they would have shown immeasurable wisdom and produced a better game.

I agree with pretty much everything you say, except a) agreeing with Romeo and b) liking takedowns - I prefer actual gameplay to cinematics, thanks.

But hacking and conversation battles were great, I agree. I also think they could very well have been part of a properly faithful sequel. Why? Because they expanded on existing systems rather than replacing them.

Pinky_Powers
24th Mar 2012, 02:06
I agree with pretty much everything you say,

Oh course, because you love me.

:naughty:

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 02:06
It's open and shut. You say he doesn't know some one/people exist(s), he refutes your assertion. No need to be sarcastic about it.

It's not open and shut because when I say the guy doesn't know he exists I'm speaking in a broad sense. Does Spector give a damn about ANYONE here? No. Spector is FOR PROFIT, and unless someone is talking about a game and making money with him (or based on something he had a hand in) it's useless. See, unlike some of the others here, and they know who they are, I don't put people on pedestals.

@kud13, there is no genre called "First Person Immersion Sims." That's something someone online (probably a member here) made up. Who won last years best First Person Immersion Sim award? How about the year before that? Exactly.


sadly, no. casuals liked Halo-like gameplay instead.

Don't blame the casual market for a lack of innovation. Halo, COD and all the other FPS are mostly comprised of so-called "hardcore" gamers.

Pinky_Powers
24th Mar 2012, 02:23
HERESY, you're funny, and ignorant... and kinda blind.


@kud13, there is no genre called "First Person Immersion Sims." That's something someone online (probably a member here) made up. Who one last years best First Person Immersion Sim award? How about the year before that? Exactly.

There is a reason the Immersive Sim is not a widely recognized genre; there are hardly any titles which fall into this category. It doesn't mean that it's not a thing, and it certainly doesn't mean the industry doesn't recognize it. I don't know who first coined the phrase, but it's been around for a long time. I first head it mentioned a million years ago in reference to Thief and System Shock.

In general, nobody makes these type of games. Even in the old days there were hardly any out there. But they do exist, and there are a few still being made, like Dishonored and Bioshock.

PS. Before anybody argues against Bioshock being an Immersive Sim, think it through first. It most certainly is. The very foundation of its gameplay is one based upon a multitude of systems all working together to produce an unpredictable environment. And the player is given the freedom to interrupt, manipulate, corrupt and exploit all of these systems.

SDF121
24th Mar 2012, 02:27
To cut right to the heart of it, if Eidos had held Immersive Sim as a pillar of the experience, and had kept all their experimentation under that cloak, they would have shown immeasurable wisdom and produced a better game.

Agreed. As much as I enjoyed Human Revolution, there were a few minor game play mechanics which would annoy me like the use of a contextual third person perspective. I almost gave up on trying out Human Revolution because of the use of a hybrid system (I've always despised them) but eventually gave in. In the end, I'm glad that I changed my mind because Human Revolution is an excellent game although the use of a hybrid perspective system is still something that continues to annoy me. Whenever I do a take down I can't help but think of how sweet it would look in the first person. Same goes for the cover system which I think is too empowering. Whenever I'm using the cover system I can't help but think of how much better it would be to have lean keys... not to mention how much more suspenseful and engrossing the game would then become.

Aside from that I believe Human Revolution surpassed its predecessor in several aspects whether it was the social aspect of the game or the streamlining of augmentations. Although I would have preferred that some augmentations were a matter of 'either/or' like the original rather than being a super solider by the end of the game. Another thing that Human Revolution got right was that the non lethal weapons were actually useful. Furthermore, the AI was another significant improvement in addition to the hacking mini game which was a blast to play. However, I do wish that they had found a better way to deal out XP since the current system encourages you to clear an area with non lethal take downs before you revisit every nook and cranny for the explorer points before you proceed to move to the next section. I also did not like how you were encouraged to hack everything like a mad man to farm XP even if you had already found out the password or had no reason to hack that computer other than to read someones random mail.

I also wish that Eidos had considered the matter of perspective when formulating their pillars of game play template. In fact, I generally like to think of Deus Ex as a Pentagon labeled "Immersive Sim" in the center with each of its five vertices representing what I take to be the five pillars of Deus Ex: Combat, Hacking, Perspective, Social, and Stealth. Plus one can also think of how the Pentagon is the last and greatest of the Platonic solids. But I'm getting off topic. Besides, I've already discussed this issue in another recent thread (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=125173). I'm sort of new to Deus Ex since I had never played any Deus Ex title until I tried out the original Deus Ex last summer. I know, I know... it was long overdue.

My first experience with Deus Ex was sometime around 2002 when I watched a friend play through an early section of Deus Ex: The Conspiracy (PS2) but it never really grabbed my attention. However, I remember being distracted while he played as I was a little preoccupied with something else but with what I don't remember. I also think that I was somewhat put off with how weird the combat looked and I remember thinking that the games cover looked lame. I was more interested in milsim games at the time like Operation Flashpoint and Ghost Recon. Although I had enjoyed various stealth games like Metal Gear and Splinter Cell, I had no idea that Deus Ex was a stealth game based on how my friend was playing through it. To me, Deus Ex just looked like a crappy fps in a cyber punk world.

Unfortunately, I also made a similar mistake by ignoring the Thief games at this time. I knew of several friends in the who had praised the game but I was never really interested in part because I never fully understood the premise of the game. I remember my neighbor who was particularly obnoxious and annoying would talk about how great the game was because "you were a thief and got to steal ****" which pretty much turned me off from the idea. Because of him, I was also under the impression that Thief was a game about being a criminal and I had no interest in playing a game where I was just a 'crooked thief'. Oh how misinformed I was!

Anyways, to make an already long story shorter, I have always been a fan of survival horror games and eventually learned about System Shock after playing through Dead Space and finding out that it was originally going to be System Shock 3. After doing some research, I figured out how to get System Shock to run on a modern computer and finally got around to playing both titles last year. Afterwards, I began to look into Deus Ex and Thief knowing that they similar in their mechanics. I also remember a fellow peer of mine from a few of my philosophy courses who had mentioned playing Deus Ex the year before so I decided to give it another chance.

Needless to say, all of these games became instant favorites and are among some of the best games I have ever played, and in 2011! It was also interesting for me to play Deus Ex with its political back story since I had already been exploring these matters for quite some time. At this time, I had also been incorporating many of these studies into my formal education at Miami Oxford whether it was a course on Assassinations in U.S. History or a course in Political Philosophy which dealt with the Anglo-American Establishment.

Anyways, I thought it was interesting to see how Deus Ex was able to weave various elements from alternative media and non revisionist history into its plot while sprinkling a little bit of the more ridiculous and far fetched here and there for sheer entertainment value. So that was one aspect of the original Deus Ex that I was able to truly appreciate whereas I felt that this aspect was one that Human Revolution seemed to miss. Although Human Revolution game some treatment to these matters, it seemed to me as if it was done in a somewhat shallow and superficial way as Human Revolution merely paid lip service to these issues. I think was in part due to their narrow focus on the issue of augmentations. Despite this, Human Revolution was an excellent game. Now if only Eidos could release an SDK so that fans can reintroduce lean keys along with a proper melee weapon! :D

Oh, and did I mention how beautiful Human Revolution is? I know that it's been built on a relatively older engine but the art design was phenomenal in this game. There were so many moments in this game where I would stop and bask in the city glow while admiring the games unique environments.

SDF121
24th Mar 2012, 02:41
Heresy, the classification of "immersive sim" is a term used to describe games such as System Shock, Thief, and Deus Ex. When Deus Ex was in development, it was being touted as a "genre-buster" since its gameplay transcended conventional orthodoxies. Here are some excellent articles which focus on the 'immersive sim'.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/ten-years-of-deus-ex/

Romeo
24th Mar 2012, 03:34
It's hard to be stagnant when (in Deus Ex's case) you're in a marketplace of one. It's not like it's had half a dozen properly faithful sequels and a range of "me-too" competitors: it's had one pretty terrible sequel, one good but only averagely faithful one, and one competitor with reasonably similar gameplay but a very different theme. There could be another 2 or 3 games properly faithful Deus Ex sequels before we even get close to "stagnant."

Besides, as I've said more times than I care to count on this forum, asking for a properly faithful successor does not necessarily require stagnation, no matter whether it's the second sequel or the twentieth. You can build on what made a game great, expand and improve, without sacrificing faithfulness. It's when you take away or entirely overhaul gameplay features that you start to be unfaithful.

But this is all off the original point anyway: we weren't talking about the merits of being a faithful sequel or not, we were talking about whether DXHR is one, and specifically whether labelling it as "the most faithful modern interpretation" is just defining it in such a way that it wins by default - making it top of the class by putting it in a class of losers. Your last post didn't touch on that, and so wasn't actually refuting anything I said.
Because we're talking about a matter of opinion on your second point. I disagree with you, you disagree with me. There's nothing to refute, nor add. Might as well continue the discussion in the direction it was headed.

On to that direction, it is still easy to stagnate. As best I can tell, you're asking for Deus Ex with better graphics. Deus Ex was fantastic, but a clone of it would be oh-so-dull. I may disagree with many of the choices made by Eidos, but I at least commend the decision to change elements. A keen example of this would be Starcraft II compared to the original. Sure, Starcraft II is an incredibly faithful sequel, but it's too faithful, nothing changed (Save for some single player elements). As a result, I found it got boring FAR quicker than what Dawn of War II did compared to Dawn of War: SoulStorm. I may not have liked many of the changes in Dawn of War II, but I still ended up playing it more than Starcraft II for the simple fact it felt like something new. I still enjoyed Starcraft II, just as I would enjoy a Deus Ex clone, but it's not a lasting enjoyment.

And with what I posted above, at a certain point, you need to evolve entirely. "More" simply becomes boring. A tower defense game with 99 turret types might hold one's attention a bit longer than one with 30 types, but at a certain point, the core gameplay is going to look far too similar. I agree that the absolute skeletal core of Deus Ex should always remain the same: First person shooter/stealth, moral implications, augmentations. But saying "this, this and this were done like this and always should" is a sure-fire way to drive the series in to the ground.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 03:36
Heresy, the classification of "immersive sim" is a term used to describe games such as System Shock, Thief, and Deus Ex. When Deus Ex was in development, it was being touted as a "genre-buster" since its gameplay transcended conventional orthodoxies. Here are some excellent articles which focus on the 'immersive sim'.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/ten-years-of-deus-ex/

Thanks for proving my point. There is no genre called "First Person Immersive Sim." Like I said, it is something someone made up (coined) and just because they made the claim or coined the phrase, it doesn't mean it actually exists. In fact, I equate the phrase with "replayabilty."

Again, what was last years winner in this genre? What about the year before? Exactly.


HERESY, you're funny, and ignorant... and kinda blind.

You're entitled to your opinions.



There is a reason the Immersive Sim is not a widely recognized genre; there are hardly any titles which fall into this category.

Because it doesn't exist.


It doesn't mean that it's not a thing, and it certainly doesn't mean the industry doesn't recognize it.

So what was last years winner in this genre? How many copies did it sell?



I don't know who first coined the phrase, but it's been around for a long time. I first head it mentioned a million years ago in reference to Thief and System Shock.

So you just started to parrot it without ever asking what you were parroting or where it came from. Gotcha.


In general, nobody makes these type of games.

You got that right.


Even in the old days there were hardly any out there. But they do exist, and there are a few still being made, like Dishonored and Bioshock.

Listen, they are not "First Person Immersive Sims." They are first person SHOOTERS or first person ACTION/ADVENTURE.


PS. Before anybody argues against Bioshock being an Immersive Sim, think it through first. It most certainly is. The very foundation of its gameplay is one based upon a multitude of systems all working together to produce an unpredictable environment. And the player is given the freedom to interrupt, manipulate, corrupt and exploit all of these systems.

First person immersive sims don't exist so your claim is null & void.

Romeo
24th Mar 2012, 04:46
Heresy, I think he's got a point. Kind've liked how "Simulative Racer" doesn't have it's own awards, nor does anyone know where it was first coined, but it's a definite genre. You're arguing semantics more than anything. Sure, it falls under the broader genre of FPS, just as a sim racer falls under the umbrella of racing game, but it is a distinct genre, or sub-genre if that's easier to swallow.

SDF121
24th Mar 2012, 04:56
Thanks for proving my point. There is no genre called "First Person Immersive Sim."

There is no genre formally known as the immersive sim because the immersive sim transcends the conventional distinctions between genres that we are accustomed to using when defining video games. The fact that Deus Ex was touted as a genre-buster was because it transcended these distinctions and did not conform to a single preconceived genre. Because of this, Deus Ex and its Looking Glass predecessors are referred to as immersive sims in an attempt to classify this unique style of gameplay.

I generally like to think of the 'immersive sim' as the 'jeet kune do' of video games as it is the "style without style". In other words, the immersive sim is a sub genre used to define a tradition of games which transcend traditional genres by being something greater. Because of this, it's difficult to come up with a proper definition for these games as the current vocabulary used to define games is seriously deficient. However, pragmatically speaking, the term immersive sim does an adequate job. It's a sim because it attempts to simulate an experience, it's immersive because it attempts to simulate the experience in a manner which immerses the player. This is why there is an emphasis on a first person perspective. It's this aspect of immersion which separates it from your traditional simulation games like your Railworks Train Simulators and your Sim City games.

To dismiss this sub genres existence by simply referring to it as a first person shooter demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. After all, to only refer to an immersive sim as a fps fails to adequately describe the many facets of this single gem.

Pinky_Powers
24th Mar 2012, 04:58
Because it doesn't exist.

Wow, that's quite existential. But let's stick to reality here. It does exist because I've played these games, and the folk who make these games do so with "Immersive Sim" rolling off their tongue. Whether or not this sub-genre has an award category means absolutely nothing to anyone... except you... and you've never quite explained why.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 05:16
Heresy, I think he's got a point. Kind've liked how "Simulative Racer" doesn't have it's own awards, nor does anyone know where it was first coined, but it's a definite genre. You're arguing semantics more than anything. Sure, it falls under the broader genre of FPS, just as a sim racer falls under the umbrella of racing game, but it is a distinct genre, or sub-genre if that's easier to swallow.

There is no genre or sub genre with called "First Person Immersion Sims." You guys are claiming it is yet none of you can even tell me or anyone else where the term came from?

We have best racer. Best third person shooter. Best this, best that. We don't have best First Person Immersion Sims because they don't exists. It's a phrase that people have adopted and want to pass on as factual or correct.

Senka
24th Mar 2012, 05:32
Just because some ceremony has or doesn't recognize a particular term doesn't mean anything anyway. As with every word, term and phrase in existence, we made it up.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 05:34
There is no genre formally known as the immersive sim because the immersive sim transcends the conventional distinctions between genres that we are accustomed to using when defining video games.

Jargon.


The fact that Deus Ex was touted as a genre-buster was because it transcended these distinctions and did not conform to a single preconceived genre. Because of this, Deus Ex and its Looking Glass predecessors are referred to as immersive sims in an attempt to classify this unique style of gameplay.


Unique style of gameplay? What is unique about it? Being Non-Linear? Giving you something you percieve as freedom? And remember, we are talking about so-called FIRST PERSON IMMERSIVE SIMS, so keep that in mind when you reply.


I generally like to think of the 'immersive sim' as the 'jeet kune do' of video games as it is the "style without style". In other words, the immersive sim is a sub genre used to define a tradition of games which transcend traditional genres by being something greater. Because of this, it's difficult to come up with a proper definition for these games as the current vocabulary used to define games is seriously deficient. However, pragmatically speaking, the term immersive sim does an adequate job.

Jargon 2.0 and circle talk. First you say it doesn't exist, then you say it does, then you say it doesn't, then you say words can't describe it, lol.


It's a sim because it attempts to simulate an experience, it's immersive because it attempts to simulate the experience in a manner which immerses the player. This is why there is an emphasis on a first person perspective. It's this aspect of immersion which separates it from your traditional simulation games like your Railworks Train Simulators and your Sim City games.


The same can be applied to Madden or any game where there is a plot, character or avatar.


To dismiss this sub genres existence by simply referring to it as a first person shooter demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

[EDITED DUE TO A MODS REQUEST]

Let's do some back tracking because I'm tired of reading your word-jugglery.

R-E-A-D this veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery slllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooowly.

Another member, in an attempt to provide proof that the genre exists, cited two games. Here is the quote:


Even in the old days there were hardly any out there. But they do exist, and there are a few still being made, like Dishonored and Bioshock.

I replied to that with the following:


Listen, they are not "First Person Immersive Sims." They are first person SHOOTERS or first person ACTION/ADVENTURE.


[EDITED DUE TO A MODS REQUEST]

I referred to the games cited as first person shooters or first person action/adventure games. That is what they are and that is what the companies who developed them say they are. On the back of Bioshock and Bioshock 2 I see no mention of "First Person Immersive Sim" yet someone here is claiming it is exactly that.

Since I know the genre of FPIS is fictional, there is no need for me to confuse it with a REAL genre such as FPS or FPA/A.


After all, to only refer to an immersive sim as a fps fails to adequately describe the many facets of this single gem.

See above.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 05:42
Just because some ceremony has or doesn't recognize a particular term doesn't mean anything anyway. As with every word, term and phrase in existence, we made it up.

How many companies refer to their games as First Person Immersive Sims?

SDF121
24th Mar 2012, 05:59
My previous post amounts to this: The term immersive sim is used in an attempt to define a niche sub genre which has no formal definition.

Also, why do you insist on referring to this sub genre as a first person immersive sim? Isn't the use of the term first person redundant as the term immersive already implies the use of first person?

Futhermore, I never denied that the immersive sim exists. All I said was that it does not exist as a formal genre.

Also, I have no issue with your claim that Bioshock is an fps with rpg elements although there are still elements of the immersive sim in that game. The issue that I decided to take up with you is your insisting that the immersive sim does not exist as a genre.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 06:02
My previous post amounts to this: The term immersive sim is used in an attempt to define a niche sub genre which has no formal definition.

How many companies refer to their games as First Person Immersive Sims?


Also, why do you insist on referring to this sub genre as a first person immersive sim? Isn't the use of the term first person redundant as the term immersive already implies the use of first person?

[EDITED DUE TO A MODS REQUEST] Why don't you R-E-A-D the thread and see for yourself that it was another member who called it that in the first place? I ignore people who show me that they aren't capable of following along, so I will no longer address your posts.


Futhermore, I never denied that the immersive sim exists. All I said was that it does not exist as a formal genre.

[EDITED DUE TO A MODS REQUEST] If it does not exist (period) it can not exist as a formal genre.


Also, I have no issue with your claim that Bioshock is an fps with rpg elements although there are still elements of the immersive sim in that game. The issue that I decided to take up with you is your insisting that the immersive sim does not exist as a genre.

You have no issue because I pointed out your lack of reading. And the genre does not exist. It is a made up phrase that people such as yourself are clinging to.

I'm done with you.

SDF121
24th Mar 2012, 06:28
How many companies refer to their games as First Person Immersive Sims?

How many companies? Aside from Ion Storm Austin and Looking Glass studios, none. How many game designers? Quite a few.

Companies tend to shy away from marketing a game as an immersive sim since the general consumer has no idea what that means. Because of this, some immersive sims are sometimes referred to as action rpgs or as some other hybrid of genres.

Despite this, there are still designers and developers who will refer to their works as being an immersive sim. You'll find that Warren Spector and Doug Church among others who worked on System Shock, Thief, and Deus Ex will refer to their games as immersive sims. Also, if you read the series of articles that I linked to earlier in this thread, you will find interviews with several game designers discussing the current state of immersive sims and what future if any lies ahead for this niche genre.

Once again, I highly recommend that you read the following:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/dark-futures/

Pinky_Powers
24th Mar 2012, 06:34
How many companies refer to their games as First Person Immersive Sims?

That's a good question. I doubt very many, as there are VERY few Immersive Sims out there. But I know Warren Spector referred to Deus Ex and System Shock as an Immersive Sim. I know Ken Levine referred to Bioshock and System Shock as an Immersive Sim. I know Harvey Smith refers to Dishonored as an Immersive Sim. I know all these people and probably many more refer to Thief and Thief 2 as an Immersive Sim.

It makes not one jot of difference whether there's an award for this genre. There simply aren't enough games in it to warrant a permanent fixture in any ceremony. It still exists and we still want more.

SDF121
24th Mar 2012, 06:52
It makes not one jot of difference whether there's an award for this genre. There simply aren't enough games in it to warrant a permanent fixture in any ceremony. It still exists and we still want more.

Exactly! The immersive sim is a niche genre which is why you will never see them marketed as such.

Tverdyj
24th Mar 2012, 07:18
There is no genre or sub genre with called "First Person Immersion Sims/" You guys are claiming it is yet none of you can even tell me or anyone else where the term came from?

We have best racer. Best third person shooter. Best this, best that. We don't have best First Person Immersion Sims because they don't exists. It's a phrase that people have adopted and want to pass on as factual or correct.

the term came from Looking Glass. I believe Spector was the one who coined it.


How many companies refer to their games as First Person Immersive Sims?

Looking Glass, Ion Storm, Arkane.....

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 07:46
That's a good question. I doubt very many, as there are VERY few Immersive Sims out there. But I know Warren Spector referred to Deus Ex and System Shock as an Immersive Sim. I know Ken Levine referred to Bioshock and System Shock as an Immersive Sim. I know Harvey Smith refers to Dishonored as an Immersive Sim. I know all these people and probably many more refer to Thief and Thief 2 as an Immersive Sim.

It makes not one jot of difference whether there's an award for this genre. There simply aren't enough games in it to warrant a permanent fixture in any ceremony. It still exists and we still want more.

Thanks for proving my point yet again. The term is a made up term applied to games that are a gumbo mix of this and that. Truth be told, no such genre exists, no matter how you try to slice it and dice it. We don't need to look at awards because we can look at what the companies themselves, especially the ones you listed, market and promote their games as.

Here is a post from a very intelligent reader on the Eidos THIEF 4 forum.


'Abuse'?!
What is Deus Ex?
A game with three basic styles of play: Shooting, Sneaking and Subverting. The same core principles that Deus Ex: Human Revolution had. Deus Ex had conversations. Deus Ex: HR had an even more robust conversation system with persuasion elements added. Deus Ex had hacking, Deus Ex: HR turned hacking into actual strategic gameplay!

Pissing and moaning about third person is irrelevant, because whether the game was in first-person, third-person or sixth-person... the core design philosophy is the same! First-person is not a CORE DESIGN ELEMENT! When Warren Spector and Ion Storm Austin sat down to brainstorm about Deus Ex, they didn't say "Okay, now we'll make a first-person game, first and foremost!" If they had, then conversations in DX never would have shifted to third-person! They would have cut off their nose to spite their face (like you seem to want Eidos Montréal to do). Critics and gamers alike are acknowledging this game's quality. You are not just a minority, you're an extremely-small, extremely marginal minority that's so pissed off that EM dared to alter a single blade of grass that you can't see the beautiful meadow they've sown instead.

This guy gets it.

Pinky_Powers
24th Mar 2012, 07:59
Thanks for proving my point yet again. The term is a made up term applied to games

All terms are made up. The fact that someone made it up means that it exists. The fact that certain developers design their games with this term in mind means it exists. Your flat denial of this is cute, but it makes you sound like an imbecile who just doesn't quite understand the concepts being discussed.

Or better yet, we can finally agree that "existence" is a philosophical concept, and not something that can be absolutely proven one way or the other.

If you believe that you exist, then everything that has been made by man's mind exists in one form or another. I think, therefore I am.

xaduha
24th Mar 2012, 09:11
I don't care about genres, I want to play a game that is like Deus Ex or better, in a sense that I would like it even more. Nothing else matters.
I don't care about franchise, IP and EM per se, I just don't want to cringe if they f up the world and characters.
I don't like grown up "Industry", but I have a hope.

Ashpolt
24th Mar 2012, 16:01
Because we're talking about a matter of opinion on your second point. I disagree with you, you disagree with me. There's nothing to refute, nor add. Might as well continue the discussion in the direction it was headed.

On to that direction, it is still easy to stagnate. As best I can tell, you're asking for Deus Ex with better graphics. Deus Ex was fantastic, but a clone of it would be oh-so-dull. I may disagree with many of the choices made by Eidos, but I at least commend the decision to change elements. A keen example of this would be Starcraft II compared to the original. Sure, Starcraft II is an incredibly faithful sequel, but it's too faithful, nothing changed (Save for some single player elements). As a result, I found it got boring FAR quicker than what Dawn of War II did compared to Dawn of War: SoulStorm. I may not have liked many of the changes in Dawn of War II, but I still ended up playing it more than Starcraft II for the simple fact it felt like something new. I still enjoyed Starcraft II, just as I would enjoy a Deus Ex clone, but it's not a lasting enjoyment.

And with what I posted above, at a certain point, you need to evolve entirely. "More" simply becomes boring. A tower defense game with 99 turret types might hold one's attention a bit longer than one with 30 types, but at a certain point, the core gameplay is going to look far too similar. I agree that the absolute skeletal core of Deus Ex should always remain the same: First person shooter/stealth, moral implications, augmentations. But saying "this, this and this were done like this and always should" is a sure-fire way to drive the series in to the ground.

No. Come on Romeo, I've been on this board for about 4 years now, you know very well that's not what I'm asking for / want / expect. I even said it in my last post: I'd like a game that took Deus Ex and built on it. That doesn't just mean adding "more" in the sense of more weapons, more levels, more characters, more augs: it means adding in new ideas that don't detract from what's already there. For example - again, mentioned in my last post - the hacking and conversation battles from DXHR could very well have been part of a fully faithful sequel, because they expanded upon the experience, they didn't take anything away. Takedowns, on the other hand, couldn't, because while they added a new layer, they entirely removed actual melee combat to do so. Third person could have been part of a faithful sequel if they'd made it optional, and provided the tools to play completely in first person should you want to: but they didn't, they removed lean keys, making first person stealth much less viable, and bound certain actions inextricably to third person.

And again you're talking about Deus Ex like it's already been done to death. It really hasn't. We've had one Deus Ex game. One. There have been two others in the series, sure, but neither of them achieved what the original did. There have also been no other games like Deus Ex, barring Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, and even that was several steps removed. Starcraft II may have seemed stagnant to you, but that's because that type of base-building RTS is ten a penny; they may have different skins, but Starcraft, Warcraft, Command and Conquer, DoW(1) etc etc are all broadly similar experiences. Deus Ex has zero peers. There's a hell of a lot of room for more Deus Ex before you need to start "redefining the experience" to avoid stagnation.

SDF121
24th Mar 2012, 18:35
@kud13, there is no genre called "First Person Immersion Sims." That's something someone online (probably a member here) made up. Who one last years best First Person Immersion Sim award? How about the year before that? Exactly.

This is the issue that I decided to take you up on. Although Kud may have referred to immersive sims as first person immersive sims, everyone else has been referring to these games as immersive sims. All I asked of you was why you insisted on using the same redundant terminology as kud had. Perhaps Kud only meant to reinforce the notion that an immersive sim signifies that the game is in first person. After all, there are individuals who fail to recognize that the very aspect of being immersive already implies the primary use of a first person perspective. Besides critiquing Kud's use of the term first person immersive sim, you later went on to critique everyones use of the term immersive sim.

Again, keep in mind that the immersive sim is a relatively small sub genre that has generally appealed to a niche audience which is why you will only find a few immersive sims today. Because the immersive sim is a niche genre, publishers are usually reluctant to fund them unless certain concessions are made with regard to game design.

On another note, why do you think that there is no longer any progress being made in first person games? I can readily think of several examples from last years batch of first person shooters that demonstrated several new improvements to the first person experience that would be most welcome in any immersive sim today.

Human Revolution was an amazing game, yet there were a still a few lingering design choices which would repeatedly separate the player from the experience. For example, the frequent use of bound third person mechanics was rather unfortunate because it would repeatedly destroy any sense of immersion that the player may have developed while continually reminding the player that they were controlling a character in a game.

There were several games last year which demonstrated that first person cover systems and first person take downs work not only work but that they can appeal to a larger audience. For a first person cover system, I would recommend looking into the first person cover system used in Red Orchestra 2 as well as Crysis 2. It's also worth noting that Medal of Honor: Airborne had already featured a first person cover system as early as 2007.

With respect to a first person melee mechanic, Battlefield 3 did this exceptionally well. In addition to first person take downs, Battlefield 3 provided the player with the option to use their knife in a more traditional fashion by allowing the player to equip their knife as a proper melee weapon. With their knife equipped, the player could then use it to either swipe at an opponent or engage in an automatic take down. Although the recent reboot of Syndicate had no proper melee weapon, it did feature first person take downs. These mechanics were great and helped these games to feel more visceral and exciting without setting up any artificial barriers between the player and the experience.

Another feature from Battlefield 3 worth noting was the whole vaulting mechanic and the full rendering of one's body. If you looked down, you would see your feet. If you vaulted over an object, you would watch your hand be placed on the object before seeing your legs swing over it. I'm assuming that DICE developed several of these ideas after making 2007's Mirror's Edge, which brought forth several notable innovations to first person games, with its parkour inspired gameplay and its first person take down system.

All of these mechanics would have been most welcome to see in Human Revolution as it would have helped Human Revolution in becoming a game that would advance the immersive sim as a genre. Despite this, Human Revolution was still able to advance the immersive sim despite taking a few steps back along the way.

Also, did you ever bother to read those articles that I suggested you read. They feature a series of five interviews with various game designers discussing the immersive sim as a genre.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 21:40
This is the issue that I decided to take you up on...

Read this:


I ignore people who show me that they aren't capable of following along, so I will no longer address your posts.

I'm done with you.

And the fact that I had a PM telling me to edit my previous post directed to you means you'll never get an in depth response from me.

You sir, just wasted your time and this sites bandwidth.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 22:25
All terms are made up. The fact that someone made it up means that it exists. The fact that certain developers design their games with this term in mind means it exists. Your flat denial of this is cute, but it makes you sound like an imbecile who just doesn't quite understand the concepts being discussed.


Yes, all terms are made up but many terms have validity. I'm sorry, but the term lacks validity. It's in the same boat as "replayability." I think I'll make up a new term now. This new term will be "87fq97r8w7fHE HE HA HA BINGO BUSCO7097098098RKHRR" What this term means is that when you post on the internet flowers will turn to chickens and praying mantids will eat clocks.

I want you to look at that and compare and contrast it with the made up genre.

Concerning your comment about sounding like an imbecile, you are entitled to your opinion, but if I had typed that I'd have a mod in my inbox telling me to edit my posts. Again, I don't care what you say about me, you can call me an imbecile or everything but a child of God if you want...your computer and your fingers, but like I said, if I had typed that someone would be in my box.


Or better yet, we can finally agree that "existence" is a philosophical concept, and not something that can be absolutely proven one way or the other.

See above.



If you believe that you exist, then everything that has been made by man's mind exists in one form or another. I think, therefore I am.

Some things are tangible. Some are not. Keep that in mind when you reply. Better yet don't reply.

Tverdyj
24th Mar 2012, 22:34
Yes, all terms are made up but many terms have validity. I'm sorry, but the term lacks validity. It's in the same boat as "replayability." I think I'll make up a new term now. This new term will be "87fq97r8w7fHE HE HA HA BINGO BUSCO7097098098RKHRR" What this term means is that when you post on the internet flowers will turn to chickens and praying mantids will eat clocks.

I want you to look at that and compare and contrast it with the made up genre.

Concerning your comment about sounding like an imbecile, you are entitled to your opinion, but if I had typed that I'd have a mod in my inbox telling me to edit my posts. Again, I don't care what you say about me, you can call me an imbecile or everything but a child of God if you want...your computer and your fingers, but like I said, if I had typed that someone would be in my box.



See above.




Some things are tangible. Some are not. Keep that in mind when you reply. Better yet don't reply.

and what exactly determines validity of a term?
Ken Levine, Warren Spector, Harvey Smith, to name just a few--these major figures in games development use the term.

The term refers to a genre of game (usually, though not necessarily by definition, first-person), where the game world is comprised of a number of systems. The method of gameplay is not proscribed to the player, and the the main emphasis is on discovering ways in which these systems may interact, while achieving set goals, leading to emergent gameplay.

Unless my memory fails me, that was the definiton used by Spector in DX developer diary, when referring to System Shock, Ultima Underworld, and the early concepts of "Shooter"--the game which went on to become DX.

If someone has the link to that, I'd appreciate it.

HERESY
24th Mar 2012, 23:18
and what exactly determines validity of a term?

There are several ways. Is within the realm of logic and reason? Can it be tested? These are just two ways but you should be able to put two and two together to get my point. Simply making up a term, catch-phrase, slogan or whatever doesn't mean anything.


Ken Levine, Warren Spector, Harvey Smith, to name just a few--these major figures in games development use the term.

And? The industry uses the term "replayability" yet there is no such thing as "replayability."


The term refers to a genre of game (usually, though not necessarily by definition, first-person), where the game world is comprised of a number of systems. The method of gameplay is not proscribed to the player, and the the main emphasis is on discovering ways in which these systems may interact, while achieving set goals, leading to emergent gameplay.

The same applies to any game with a story and character/avatar.

ZakKa89
24th Mar 2012, 23:47
so much copypasta in this thread it isn't even funny. Even a mod said "you just want deus ex with better graphics". We almost went full circle. :d

Tverdyj
25th Mar 2012, 00:25
i am starting to think that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Can the validity be tested: there are a number of developers, who speak of Immersive sim, assigning the term the same meaning. this meaning is adopted by a number of games journalists, and through them, game enthusiasts
http://www.giantbomb.com/immersive-sim/92-5700/

nfluential sub-genre established by Looking Glass Studios in which the player is free to act as they choose in a richly simulated world, often associated with action-RPGs. The term was coined by Warren Spector in his Deus Ex post-mortem.

A school of game design established by Looking Glass Studios with Thief, Underworld and System Shock, alive today in games like Bioshock and Deus Ex...

Immersion in an elaborate and believable game world.
Simulation: physics and AI are used to create believable behavior in objects and characters which the player can freely interact with, resulting in emergent gameplay.
First person perspective so as to truly look through the eyes of the protagonist (though not all games adhere to this).
Game design that allows multiple paths and/or multiple solutions in every situation.

the list names 34 games which are considred to fall within the definition

where do we draw the line? how large a sample size do we need to figure out if a term "exists"?

wrt to replayability: how is there no such thing? if the game offers you multiple, mutually-exclusive ways to play through itself, this means that the experience on one playthrough will not be the same as the experience on the next one. the particular definition would surely be a measure of degree (to what extent is playing Doom with only a Chainsaw different from playing it only with a BFG), but that does not mean the term does not exist.

in a more robust example of replayability, look at Diablo-clones, which offer multiple classes for playing the game. the experience of playing Diablo II as a Barbarian would be different form playing it as an Amazon, because the player would need to employ different tactics, favouring ranged combat and more frequent retreats.

to go even further on the spectrum, you may have RPGs, such as Alpha protocol, where your decisions during one portion of the game affect the other porion of the game, up to and including, providing allies, reducing number of enemies provinding extra equipment and even changing the enemies you face in the end of the game!

for your last pint--you either misunderstand what I am saying, or are deliberately ignoring it. Yes, most (though not all) games where you are a character have other characters react to you in pre-deleniated ways. However, the differnce is in the complexity of the interactions. will you honestly tell me that a game like Serious Sam, or Max Payne, or even Half-Life, where you progress in a linear progression from one corridor/wide open area to the next, with the only interaction being "fire at the bad guys" is the exact same as Bloodlines, where the reaction of environment to your actions is predicated on the Masquerade enforcement, Law enforcement, Humanity meter, bloodthirst, to say nothing about your character's stats and abilities?

to expend on that, in games like Max apyne or CoD, once I enter the room, the NPC start shooting me. In games like DX, or S.T.A.L.K.E.R, whether or not people shoot me is often predicated on a number of factors, such as, whether or not I'm supposed to be hostile. If i didn't shoot any triads in wanChai, they won't attack me. If the cops don't see me breaking into a store, they won't attack me. I may stealthily dispatch the 3 cops in the police station, but as long as the one cop by the restaurant doesn't see it, he will remain friendly.

likewise, when i'm running towards the Duty-held Bar in Shadow of Chernobyl, with a pack of pseudodogs on my heels, the Duty patrol will shoot the dogs, but it won't shoot me. Unless I declared myself as member of Freedom, in which case they will shoot me and the dogs--but their reaction will be predicated on my actions.

the immersice sim is different, because we are dealing with a combination of systems. In max payne, I shoot people, they die. if I have a shotgun, with 2 bullets, and I miss the head, and they have thick armour, I die. In S.T.A.L.K.E.R. if I'm facing a Monolith fighter in full armour, and all I have is a sawed-off and a light jacker, I can still win by shooting him in the chest and watch him stumble from recoil into a gravity anomaly and get slammed to pieces. likewise, in Bioshock, for all its faults, the elemental plasmids, and especially the combos of water-lightning, oil-fire, etc provide another layer to the game--additional possibilities for the player to use. The player doesn't need to use them--i may just as well headshot the Monolith fighter--but it provides additional ways to use the game environment, that is unavailable in run of the mill games.



so much copypasta in this thread it isn't even funny. Even a mod said "you just want deus ex with better graphics". We almost went full circle. :d

lol, I don't think we've had a "there is no such thing as Immersive Sim" in there yet.....

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 00:42
i am starting to think that you are being deliberately obtuse.

You can think what you like.


Can the validity be tested: there are a number of developers, who speak of Immersive sim, assigning the term the same meaning. this meaning is adopted by a number of games journalists, and through them, game enthusiasts
http://www.giantbomb.com/immersive-sim/92-5700/

nfluential sub-genre established by Looking Glass Studios in which the player is free to act as they choose in a richly simulated world, often associated with action-RPGs. The term was coined by Warren Spector in his Deus Ex post-mortem.

This has already been addressed. People using the term means nothing. As previous shown, I can make up a term but does that mean anything? No, and this also goes beyond fads and trends so keep that in mind when replying.


A school of game design established by Looking Glass Studios with Thief, Underworld and System Shock, alive today in games like Bioshock and Deus Ex...

A school of game design? Which one of those titles were advertised as a so-called immersive sim?



Immersion in an elaborate and believable game world.
Simulation: physics and AI are used to create believable behavior in objects and characters which the player can freely interact with, resulting in emergent gameplay.
First person perspective so as to truly look through the eyes of the protagonist (though not all games adhere to this).
Game design that allows multiple paths and/or multiple solutions in every situation.


The same can be applied to Madden.



the list names 34 games which are considred to fall within the definition


And correct if I'm wrong but most of those games aren't classified as an immersive sim.


where do we draw the line? how large a sample size do we need to figure out if a term "exists"?

We draw the line at the fact that there is no category for it, the fact that these games aren't being marketed and promoted as such, and the fact that the elements listed can be applied to any game as long as there is an avatar or some sort of plot or story.


wrt to replayability: how is there no such thing? if the game offers you multiple, mutually-exclusive ways to play through itself, this means that the experience on one playthrough will not be the same as the experience on the next one. the particular definition would surely be a measure of degree (to what extent is playing Doom with only a Chainsaw different from playing it only with a BFG), but that does not mean the term does not exist.
in a more robust example of replayability, look at Diablo-clones, which offer multiple classes for playing the game. the experience of playing Diablo II as a Barbarian would be different form playing it as an Amazon, because the player would need to employ different tactics, favouring ranged combat and more frequent retreats.


http://iam.benabraham.net/2010/09/replayability-is-not-a-word/



to go even further on the spectrum, you may have RPGs, such as Alpha protocol, where your decisions during one portion of the game affect the other porion of the game, up to and including, providing allies, reducing number of enemies provinding extra equipment and even changing the enemies you face in the end of the game!


I wish you wouldn't...


for your last pint--you either misunderstand what I am saying, or are deliberately ignoring it. Yes, most (though not all) games where you are a character have other characters react to you in pre-deleniated ways. However, the differnce is in the complexity of the interactions. will you honestly tell me that a game like Serious Sam, or Max Payne, or even Half-Life, where you progress in a linear progression from one corridor/wide open area to the next, with the only interaction being "fire at the bad guys" is the exact same as Bloodlines, where the reaction of environment to your actions is predicated on the Masquerade enforcement, Law enforcement, Humanity meter, bloodthirst, to say nothing about your character's stats and abilities?

This has been addressed. You are given a set of choices which are limited to what the developer coded for. You are given the illusion of free will and choice but at the end of the day things are still quantifiable. Is a game as complex as ME the same as playing Super Mario bros? No, but at the end of the day you can't play the two games EXACTLY the same no matter how hard you try.


to expend on that, in games like Max apyne or CoD, once I enter the room, the NPC start shooting me. In games like DX, or S.T.A.L.K.E.R, whether or not people shoot me is often predicated on a number of factors, such as, whether or not I'm supposed to be hostile. If i didn't shoot any triads in wanChai, they won't attack me. If the cops don't see me breaking into a store, they won't attack me. I may stealthily dispatch the 3 cops in the police station, but as long as the one cop by the restaurant doesn't see it, he will remain friendly.

See above.



likewise, when i'm running towards the Duty-held Bar in Shadow of Chernobyl, with a pack of pseudodogs on my heels, the Duty patrol will shoot the dogs, but it won't shoot me. Unless I declared myself as member of Freedom, in which case they will shoot me and the dogs--but their reaction will be predicated on my actions.

See above.


the immersice sim is different, because we are dealing with a combination of systems. In max payne, I shoot people, they die. if I have a shotgun, with 2 bullets, and I miss the head, and they have thick armour, I die. In S.T.A.L.K.E.R. if I'm facing a Monolith fighter in full armour, and all I have is a sawed-off and a light jacker, I can still win by shooting him in the chest and watch him stumble from recoil into a gravity anomaly and get slammed to pieces. likewise, in Bioshock, for all its faults, the elemental plasmids, and especially the combos of water-lightning, oil-fire, etc provide another layer to the game--additional possibilities for the player to use. The player doesn't need to use them--i may just as well headshot the Monolith fighter--but it provides additional ways to use the game environment, that is unavailable in run of the mill games.

There is no such thing as an immersive sim.

Tverdyj
25th Mar 2012, 00:54
please provide example of emergent gameplay in Madden

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 00:58
please provide example of emergent gameplay in Madden

21 Skunk rule.

Mandatory punt rule.

"ALL BOMBS."

Glitching.

Any other questions?

Tverdyj
25th Mar 2012, 01:05
21 Skunk rule.

Mandatory punt rule.

"ALL BOMBS."

Glitching.

Any other questions?

english? for someone who never played madden?

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 01:13
english? for someone who never played madden?


21 Skunk rule.

21-0 before/by half time = game over.


Mandatory punt rule.


Self explanitory but in case you didn't know you're required to punt no matter if it is 4th and inches or 4th and 99.



"ALL BOMBS."


Nothing but hail mary passes.


Glitching.

Self explanitory and not permitted in tournaments.

neoWilks
25th Mar 2012, 05:12
21-0 before/by half time = game over.

snip

Do you understand what is meant by emergent gameplay?

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 17:07
Do you understand what is meant by emergent gameplay?

Absolutely. You can look at it in several ways but here are two examples.

1. A type of game, game style or game mechanic that was not intentionally meant to be done but adopted by players. (This would apply to the Madden examples.)

2. The AI doing things not specifically coded for or to allow certain things to play out/happen. (This would apply to a couple of RPG's)

Any other questions?

neoWilks
25th Mar 2012, 18:36
Absolutely. You can look at it in several ways but here are two examples.

1. A type of game, game style or game mechanic that was not intentionally meant to be done but adopted by players. (This would apply to the Madden examples.)

2. The AI doing things not specifically coded for or to allow certain things to play out/happen. (This would apply to a couple of RPG's)

Any other questions?
:/ That's not what's meant by emergent gameplay.

The first is simply house rules. It can exist with or without mechanics that allow for emergent gameplay. The second isn't either. The AI can only ever do things it was coded for. I'm not sure how AI could ever do things it wasn't coded to do.

Emergent gameplay refers to simple game mechanics interacting in such a way so as to produce complex results. This can sometimes manifest in ways that the developers never considered, but it's not a requirement. A game can implement this better by encouraging creative, out-of-the-box thinking, compelling players to examine how they might use their character abilities, inventory, environment, and AI together to produce certain ends.

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 18:57
:/ That's not what's meant by emergent gameplay.

Actually it is. Google is your friend.


The first is simply house rules. It can exist with or without mechanics that allow for emergent gameplay. The second isn't either. The AI can only ever do things it was coded for. I'm not sure how AI could ever do things it wasn't coded to do.

READ both of these links and you will understand what emergent gameplay is and how AI can do what it wasn't coded for.

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=117
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9073455



Emergent gameplay refers to simple game mechanics interacting in such a way so as to produce complex results. This can sometimes manifest in ways that the developers never considered, but it's not a requirement. A game can implement this better by encouraging creative, out-of-the-box thinking, compelling players to examine how they might use their character abilities, inventory, environment, and AI together to produce certain ends.

Addressed in the links.

TrickyVein
25th Mar 2012, 18:58
I thought emergent gameplay referred to the PC being able to think of a solution to a problem and then implement that solution without necessarily being told that such a thing were even possible.

The AI and the game can do whatever it does, that's just programming. Emergent gameplay allows the player to interact with a game beyond what the player thinks is only prescribed by the game. So it involves the PC's perception of himself or herself playing the game and rejecting preconceived notions that there are only x number of ways to play the game. Now there are x+1 number of ways, and maybe x+n number of ways. It's not enough to describe emergent gameplay only through what the AI can or can't do. You must relate this with how the player's perception of the game is changed as a result.

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 19:02
I thought emergent gameplay referred to the PC being able to think of a solution to a problem and then implement that solution without necessarily being told that such a thing were even possible.

The AI and the game can do whatever it does, that's just programming. Emergent gameplay allows the player to interact with a game beyond what the player thinks is only prescribed by the game. So it involves the PC's perception of himself or herself playing the game and rejecting preconceived notions that there are only x number of ways to play the game. Now there are x+1 number of ways, and maybe x+n number of ways. It's not enough to describe emergent gameplay only through what the AI can or can't do. You must relate this with how the player's perception of the game is changed as a result.

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=15117.0

TrickyVein
25th Mar 2012, 19:36
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff31/spongerapple/picard-facepalm.jpg

HERESY, the link you've provided is an excellent example of what it is I'm trying to say. The user 'bvanevery' probably thinks that true emergent gameplay is something that can be programmed. It isn't. He is entirely correct that the game is only a sum of its programmed parts. But game developers cannot always account for everything that they will create. It is the player's realization that something *more* is possible that results in said emergent gameplay. The level of complexity of the virtual systems in which we find ourselves can be so vast that the same sense of discovery of natural law that we have in reality may, in rare instances, be transferred over to the game world in which the player discovers what is and isn't possible. That is emergent gameplay.

SDF121
25th Mar 2012, 20:04
http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=15117.0

Quick question, are you bvanevery in this thread? If so, why would you cite yourself from a thread in which everyone else refutes your position. If you are not bvanevery, then why would you cite the opinion of another as if it were truth?

I ask because after reading through that entire thread, I found that bvanevery's opinions were based upon insufficient grounds rather than well reasoned discourse. Furthermore, I found that bvanevery acted rather immature by dismissing every other participants arguments while effectively declaring himself the victor by stating that he would no longer discuss the matter once he found that his opinions were quickly refuted by every other participant in the thread. If anything, this was a terrible example to cite in making your case.

Also, I'm not exactly sure how the other two links that you provided demonstrate how Madden qualifies as an example of emergent gameplay? While I agree with the explanation provided for emergent gameplay in those two links, I'm not exactly sure why you cited either of these articles as they seem to go against the position that you have adopted. Perhaps I am mistaken on what exactly your position is so please indulge me by restating what exactly your position is so that I can be sure of what you're trying to prove here.

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 20:28
...

I had a response posted but I'm editing it. I forgot that you were the guy that went crying to the mods so I'm not answering you. The ONLY way you would see the original response, which was somewhat informative and basically answered most of your questions, is if you get notices in your email box that show the messages. If not you miss out.

I'm not replying to you guy. Stop asking me questions.


http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff31/spongerapple/picard-facepalm.jpg

That pic is well suited for you.


HERESY, the link you've provided is an excellent example of what it is I'm trying to say. The user 'bvanevery' probably thinks that true emergent gameplay is something that can be programmed. It isn't.

Now compare what you just said to what I previously said which you chimed in and said was wrong:


2. The AI doing things not specifically coded for or to allow certain things to play out/happen. (This would apply to a couple of RPG's)

So instead of telling me what you're trying to say, why don't you R-E-A-D what I have said and not jump the gun?


He is entirely correct that the game is only a sum of its programmed parts. But game developers cannot always account for everything that they will create.

WOW! That is basically stated in point 2.


It is the player's realization that something *more* is possible that results in said emergent gameplay.

Please refer to previous posts.


The level of complexity of the virtual systems in which we find ourselves can be so vast that the same sense of discovery of natural law that we have in reality may, in rare instances, be transferred over to the game world in which the player discovers what is and isn't possible. That is emergent gameplay.

Please refer to points 1 and 2.

SDF121
25th Mar 2012, 21:01
I had a response posted but I'm editing it. I forgot that you were the guy that went crying to the mods so I'm not answering you. The ONLY way you would see the original response, which was somewhat informative and basically answered most of your questions, is if you get notices in your email box that show the messages. If not you miss out.

I'm not replying to you guy. Stop asking me questions.

I never contacted a mod with regard to the ad hominem attacks that were in your original message. In fact, I was surprised to see that a mod edited your remarks as I did not find them personally offensive. Once again you are deflecting the issue by being dismissive of my inquiries. This is perfectly fine and you are entitled to do so. However, refusing to answer your critics does nothing to support your argument. Again, I respectfully ask that you calmly restate your arguments in a more concise manner so that everyone here can fully understand what you're trying to prove here.

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 21:20
I never contacted a mod with regard to the ad hominem attacks that were in your original message. In fact, I was surprised to see that a mod edited your remarks as I did not find them personally offensive. Once again you are deflecting the issue by being dismissive of my inquiries. This is perfectly fine and you are entitled to do so. However, refusing to answer your critics does nothing to support your argument. Again, I respectfully ask that you calmly restate your arguments in a more concise manner so that everyone here can fully understand what you're trying to prove here.

Guy, you contacted the mod. An ad hominem attack would be if I made personal attacks that had nothing to do with anything we were discussing. I didn't attack you period. What I did was provide you with a logical assessment, a correction if you will, that proved that you weren't making sense and didn't read what you were responding to. You question my comprehension, I questioned yours and provided proof (which you never answered or addressed after it was shown) that spoke to your inability or reluctance to critically read and think. It's ok for you to call my comprehension into question, but when I return the favor and provide proof as to who needs to really be questioned, I get dinged.

I'm answering everyone else except you (and the other guy who refused to read.) Look in this thread and look in the other thread (the third person thread) and you'll see I'm answering multiple people. As previously stated, I had a response to you, I posted it, but I deleted it once I looked at the names. I don't want to talk to you. Yes this is your thread but other people are partaking in this thread so I will continue to address them but avoid YOU.

Next time don't throw bricks but try to hide your hand.

SDF121
25th Mar 2012, 21:44
Guy, you contacted the mod. An ad hominem attack would be if I made personal attacks that had nothing to do with anything we were discussing. I didn't attack you period. What I did was provide you with a logical assessment, a correction if you will, that proved that you weren't making sense and didn't read what you were responding to. You question my comprehension, I questioned yours and provided proof (which you never answered or addressed after it was shown) that spoke to your inability or reluctance to critically read and think. It's ok for you to call my comprehension into question, but when I return the favor and provide proof as to who needs to really be questioned, I get dinged.

Once again, I can assure you that I was not the one who contacted one of the forums moderators. Perhaps Romeo or someone else can affirm this?

Anyways, all I had said earlier with regard to you was that based on your claims with respect immersive sims, it would seem as if there was a "fundamental lack of understanding" with respect to what exactly constitutes an immersive sim. In no way was this meant to be taken as a denigrating comment. Rather I simply intended to state that I think the issue here is with respect to our definitions. Everyone else in this thread has been operating under the commonly accepted definition of what constitutes an immersive sim. You, on the other hand, deny the validity of such a definition by claiming that it is a mere fiction devoid of any substantial meaning. If I can correctly recall, you took my claim that there was a degree of misunderstanding on your part with respect to the matter personally and proceeded to attack my reading comprehension in a way that deflected from the conversation.

Instead of addressing my inquiries with respect to immersive sims you then claimed that this was not an issue and that I was wrong to take you up on the matter. You then claimed that you were criticizing Kud for his references of Bioshock as a first person immersive sim. However, based on your subsequent posts throughout this thread, you have argued against the existence of the immersive sim as a sub genre or philosophy of game design which is the issue that I decided to address.

My response was the following:


This is the issue that I decided to take you up on. Although Kud may have referred to immersive sims as first person immersive sims, everyone else has been referring to these games as immersive sims. All I asked of you was why you insisted on using the same redundant terminology as kud had. Perhaps Kud only meant to reinforce the notion that an immersive sim signifies that the game is in first person. After all, there are individuals who fail to recognize that the very aspect of being immersive already implies the primary use of a first person perspective. Besides critiquing Kud's use of the term first person immersive sim, you later went on to critique everyones use of the term immersive sim.

So despite your claims that attempted to question my ability of reading comprehension, I responded by restating my previous comments in another fashion in the attempt to bring clarity to what it was that I had hoped to address. However, it seemed as if my comments only led to the further deterioration of this thread. Again, I would like to remind you that there is no reason for any ill will between us. After all, it is my hope that we may proceed to discuss these issues in a calm but spirited fashion all while exercising good will towards one another. Then, and only then, may we hope to have a proper discussion with well reasoned arguments.

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 21:47
You're wasting your time.

TrickyVein
25th Mar 2012, 21:57
HERESY, I'd like to ask you to pay attention to the following conflicting information which you yourself have provided.

From shamusyoung.com:


This is emergent behavior. You didn’t write code to tell non-combatants to run around alerting other non-combatants. You didn’t write code to tell guards to try to attack the player from two different locations. You didn’t write code to tell the non-cobatants to hide “behind” combatants. All of that just happened, as a result of the system you set up [emphasis mine].

From 1up.com:


I would contend that unanticipated behavior can come from any sufficiently complicated system[emphasis mine].

And now, from user 'bvanevery':


Anything that ever happens in games, pretty much is anticipated by game designers before it happens. A rocket launcher that makes you go airborne isn't emergent gameplay. It's a consequence of implementing a physics system, and a fairly straightforward one at that[again, emphasis mine].

What, exactly, are you trying to say, HERESY? It may be confusing to some users which information you wish to use to help argue your position and which defeats it.

HERESY
25th Mar 2012, 22:16
HERESY, I'd like to ask you to pay attention to the following conflicting information which you yourself have provided.

There is a reason why the information is conflicting.

1. It is NEVER a good thing to rely one perspective. This is how/why bias occurs.

2. Follow the thread.

3. The information is conflicting because all sources are giving their opinions and there is no general consensus as to what emergent gameplay is.




From shamusyoung.com:

This is no different from point 2 in my previous posts.


From 1up.com:

See above.


And now, from user 'bvanevery':

Remember, this guys premise is that emergent gameplay does not exist. I'm not saying it doesn't exist and have never said it doesn't exist. What I've said is "You can look at it in several ways" and provied two examples.

Read the thread with the bvanevery guy and you'll see that many of the users in the thread are saying there is no general consensus, and when they talk of definitions, it all goes down hill because it has yet to be clearly defined.


What, exactly, are you trying to say, HERESY?

See above. My advice to you is to backtrack or read the thread from start to finish and pay attention to what I'm responding to.

neoWilks
26th Mar 2012, 00:39
Actually it is.

Explain.


READ both of these links and you will understand what emergent gameplay is and how AI can do what it wasn't coded for.

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=117
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9073455

Okay, I understand what you're saying sort of. You should have stated what you meant more clearly. Obviously the AI is still coded to do things, it's just that the code is less specific. But this on it's own is insufficient. The player interacts with the environment and the AI in such a way that non-scripted situations result. It's the sum of all elements working together, not simply any one component on it's own.

Madden probably does have this to a certain extent. The AI has to react to whatever movements the player makes. It'd be impractical to code for each specific movement the player may make. I'm not sure why Madden sharing this component with immersive sims leads you to conclude that the immersive sim genre does not exist. Genres overlap all the time.

TrickyVein
26th Mar 2012, 03:50
There is a reason why the information is conflicting...I'm not saying it doesn't exist and have never said it doesn't exist. What I've said is "You can look at it in several ways" and provied two examples.

So I can only conclude that you don't agree with the user 'bvanevery' and provided a link to his spiel which you don't agree with. But please, don't let me put words in your mouth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). It seems your point is to not make one, because there are potentially several? You could have said as much with less bile. Having gone back now through this thread, I'm convinced that you don't care about having a discussion. I'm finished with you. :wave:

3rdmillhouse
27th Mar 2012, 23:02
source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-03-16-warren-spector-on-deus-ex-human-revolution-i-screamed-at-the-television-as-i-played

As much as he enjoyed the newest take on the franchise, Spector was also equally fascinated and frustrated by certain design choices Eidos Montreal made.

“I screamed at the television as I played this game. I loved the game at the end of the day, but I screamed constantly because there were two, three, four things they did where I just said ‘Nooooo, why did you this? Noooo!’, and it wasn’t that it was right or wrong, it was different than what I expected.”

Well, to be fair, that's exactly how I felt when I realized that IW had implemented the atrocious concept of universal ammunition. I screamed at my PC.

Arach666
29th Mar 2012, 21:32
Yeah Warren,I did the exact same thing when I played Invisible War.

SDF121
29th Mar 2012, 23:25
OP, if you have no objection, the mods will delete all the off-topic discussion shortly so that your thread is clean again.

That's fine by me.

KenTWOu
20th Apr 2012, 06:07
So what was last years winner in this genre? How many copies did it sell?
The funny thing is our mature video game industry doesn't know the exact genre of Deus Ex: Human Revolution either.

Sometimes it called DEXR an RPG (http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2011-nominees/voting/best-rpg), sometimes it said DEXR is an action (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/12/30/deus-ex-human-revolution-pc-gamer-uks-action-game-of-the-year/), sometimes - an adventure (http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2011-awards/genre-awards/index.html). BAFTA even once said that DEXR is a strategy game (http://www.bafta.org/games/awards/nominees-winners-2012,2892,BA.html#jump16)! :)

So, HERESY, fortunately your 'holy war' against 'immersive sim' term or sub-genre is rather pointless.

Happy
20th Apr 2012, 18:58
^^ Ah, the hate that makes this forum run is still as prevalent today as it was when I first joined.

That's it my friends, allow the darkness to fill you up and give in to your emotions - come over to the dark side muha ha ha ha.

HERESY
21st Apr 2012, 17:46
The funny thing is our mature video game industry doesn't know the exact genre of Deus Ex: Human Revolution either.

Sometimes it called DEXR an RPG (http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2011-nominees/voting/best-rpg), sometimes it said DEXR is an action (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/12/30/deus-ex-human-revolution-pc-gamer-uks-action-game-of-the-year/), sometimes - an adventure (http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2011-awards/genre-awards/index.html). BAFTA even once said that DEXR is a strategy game (http://www.bafta.org/games/awards/nominees-winners-2012,2892,BA.html#jump16)! :)

So, HERESY, fortunately your 'holy war' against 'immersive sim' term or sub-genre is rather pointless.

You should spend more time reading and less time typing. That may be hard to do as the mods have deleted some of my posts but there is no "holy war" against the made up genre/sub-genre.

JCpies
21st Apr 2012, 19:18
One of the more pointless arguments I have seen on this forum.

AlexOfSpades
21st Apr 2012, 19:41
Meh, dunno about that JC. Seen some really shallow ones here. Do you remember the "Small Heads" discussion? Jesus, cant believe how long that lasted.

Tverdyj
25th Apr 2012, 21:58
your points are valid. But that time hasn't come yet. EDIT: hopefully, by the time it does, there will be another game, that succeeded in building on DX's principles. And I only consider HR a partial success.

re: the elements--the most obvious flaw I see is the exp system. the game was marketed as "play in any of the three ways--Kill everyone, knock everyone out, or sneak and hack" (ref-ing back to a particular promotion trailer). it's understandable, from a marketing standpoint. But then you get into the game, and the exp system works very similar, but with a clear slant. Everytime a developer provides a reward disparity between approaches, they engage "gamer logic"--people see numbers and they start to look for how to get the highest numbers. The ideas behind original DX +other similar games was that you could any approach, in any combination--hack the first 3rd of the level, sneak around the second, go berzerk in the third. HR didn't handle that well. I suspect this may have had something to do with their concept of "pillars of gameplay", rather than focusing on interacting systems.
(in that respect, on a total sidenote: this is one of the reasons I'm really excited and curious about the Kickstarter product "Shadowrun Returns". Despite being a totally diff genre, its gameplay is based on "4 realities" of the Shadowrun universe, and the ability of the player+his party to interpret them and how they map onto each other.)
while the "4 pillars" approach has clear merits, it has drawbacks in that it professes an intention to stifle creativity and player agency (i'm not saying that's what the devs wanted. However, that's the impression such a description gives).
One example from these very forums was somebody saying how they've dealt with a particularly tricky set of laser tripwires. the wires were set to turn off when the patrolling guards were passing through, so the player knocked out a guard, and carried his body close to the sensors to turn them off and pass through. This is a great move, and it's laudable that the devs designed the game so as to make it work. that being said, it doesn't easily fit any of the "4 pillars" they talked about, so that few people would feel encouraged to try something like this.

As an afterthought: the Bosses. I haven't played TML yet (I've had finals, and now i'm busy with the Witcher 2), but what I found most jarring was how the boss encounters were so completely out of tone with the game style the exp system actively encouraged the player to take. I don't want to talk about the merits of the actual boss fights--that's a separate debatable issue--but just the way they seemed so counter-intuitive to the impression the game has been trying to make through its feedback on my actions (via exp)

Tverdyj
26th Apr 2012, 21:25
I doubt Syndicate is a good example--simply because it had its own specifics to fall back on, and it was far more tilted towards FPS. On top of that, it was being developed for a while before we got any info on HR's gameplay, so to call it an attempt to copy HR is a bit premature.

Can you clarify your second point? I'm not sure I understand it.

RE: Shadowrun--the situation is a bit different, becasue you own avatar will only have access to one of the 4 realities (based on class), with other recruitable characters complementing it. It's different from "play it shooting/sneaking/hacking/). But this is an aside. not to mention that SR is 2-d RPG with X-COM style turn-based combat, :D

Re: puzzles: of course it doesn't. My point is, if you market it exclusively as "these are the 4 ways of doing things", you are restricting the chances that players will think outside the box--which is a loss, imho. Though obviously it's an intangible loss and not the kind marketing department can easily quantify. But if the game was marketed with hype on 4 pillars, and you see a puzzle, it's natural to use the "4 pillars" to solve it.
All I'm saying is, it would have served them better to say "we are envisioning 4 core approaches to the game *list pillars*, but we strive to design levels that allow players find other, additional solutions". (On that note, I really wish they didn't skimp on the physics for HR)

I agree with you on the TML implementation-it's highly annoying. Disagree on the bosses--I've read Icarus Effect, and i'm not convinced they had to die. But I never thought the plot was HR's forte. From gameplay perspective, we seem to agree on the need to multiple approaches.

KenTWOu
28th Apr 2012, 04:48
So for the fourth time (two of which have been deleted), what is your opinion of Spector?
Warren Spector clearly said that DXHR is a proper Deus Ex game with different design decisions, but haters gonna hate.


The genre is made up.
Every genre is made up.

brbrainerd
5th Jun 2012, 04:49
Anyone can get lucky once. I'm not sure how much weight I can assign to Specter's opinion, or how much of the original Deus Ex's brilliance is traceable to him. He did bring us Invisible War, after all.

Shralla
5th Jun 2012, 15:48
So did Harvey Smith, who is now bringing us Dishonored. So there's that.

Ashpolt
5th Jun 2012, 17:21
Anyone can get lucky once. I'm not sure how much weight I can assign to Specter's opinion, or how much of the original Deus Ex's brilliance is traceable to him. He did bring us Invisible War, after all.

You do realise Warren Spector has made more games than just Deus Ex and Invisible War, right?