PDA

View Full Version : DX3 is a revamped DX1..



JoeGreensKiller
22nd Oct 2014, 06:32
As a long time player of DX1, I mean too the point where I needed an intervention! lol ..I was very scepticle of DX3, especially after the DX2 being very disappointing...I just bought DX3 a few days ago even though its been out for a little while...To my amazement I can't help but think they just revamped the first one...too the point its the same game..only very different...Fans of DX1 will understand...Its a fantastic game!!! Different enough too be its own game, but keeping the DX1 feel...I also love the references used to DX1... Just here too thank the team for a very well thought out game, but also introducing the franchise too people who have not yet played the first.... Cheers

Shralla
22nd Oct 2014, 16:53
I'm not even touching this one.

CyberP
22nd Oct 2014, 16:55
My thoughts exactly.

68_pie
22nd Oct 2014, 20:49
Just nope.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
24th Oct 2014, 01:21
^
Stand down agents... there is no need to shoot on sight. :D


Its a fantastic game!!! Different enough too be its own game, but keeping the DX1 feel...I also love the references used to DX1... Just here too thank the team for a very well thought out game, but also introducing the franchise too people who have not yet played the first.... Cheers

EM should certainly feel proud of their efforts with DXHR. Fan reviews pretty much agree with your comments - the devs got a lot right with the game. :thumb:
There are some parts they got wrong, of course, but here's hoping EM make improvements for the next instalment.

Jito463
24th Oct 2014, 14:26
There's no doubt it's a decent Deus Ex game (and a far cry better than the job they did with the new Thief), but it still doesn't stand up to the original.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
24th Oct 2014, 17:29
I 100% agree with you.

LeMoN_LiMe
27th Oct 2014, 23:38
Just beat it again and I agree.

JoeGreensKiller
29th Oct 2014, 06:43
Ya but this on answers some questions...such as how the Dragon Sword tooth really came too be...I'm guessing thats the data on the Data stick given too Tong...but of course you all thought of that.. lol


I never said it was the same game...read **** be for your goofy no it all comments...Anyone who played the first know's what i'm talking about..no one eles cought the SMASHTHESTATE reference either??? ..or Icuras, and who is that at the start..Bob Page may be???? lol

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Oct 2014, 09:17
Hey Joe. (I can feel a song coming on :D ) - watch those double posts.
You should use the 'edit' button if you would like to add something to your previous post.

CyberP
29th Oct 2014, 10:51
2012's alt I suspect.

AdrianShephard
29th Oct 2014, 13:39
Ya but this on answers some questions...such as how the Dragon Sword tooth really came too be...I'm guessing thats the data on the Data stick given too Tong...but of course you all thought of that.. lol


Dragon's Tooth was a VersaLife creation that was developed much closer to 2052 than 2027, I believe. Replay DX (or watch a LP) to see how it got into the hands of the Triads. I wouldn't say HR answered any questions, it just gave some insight into a few story elements. DX was did a good job setting itself up. All the devs can do at this point -- other than to explore some topics not covered in DX -- is invent info and stick it into places where we didn't know it was necessary...e.g. Jensen's DNA being the basis for the Dentons (although this wasn't even explained well). The Deus Ex universe was perfectly fine without this piece of trivia.


..no one eles cought the SMASHTHESTATE reference either??? ..or Icuras, and who is that at the start..Bob Page may be???? lol

Sure, there are Easter Eggs; they remind the player that this game is supposedly in the same universe as the first one. But almost nothing evolves past the cameo/Easter Egg state, and it's somewhat frustrating.

Shralla
29th Oct 2014, 17:47
Anyone who played the first know's what i'm talking about..no one eles cought the SMASHTHESTATE reference either??? ..or Icuras, and who is that at the start..Bob Page may be???? lol

So all a game needs to do to be a "revamped" version of an older game is include references to the older game? Because that's all that is.

FrankCSIS
29th Oct 2014, 21:59
I feel like answering this, regardless of initial intent!

The subject of sequels (I use the term loosely here) is complex enough when it comes to movies, it's almost impossible to define a unique or universal successful approach and/or definition of it when it comes to games. My most recent approach to it is rather simple. Could the player of the sequel (prequel, reboot, spiritual successor, whatever) easily get into the first game, having only played the latest entry?

If the identity of a game is very complex to put into words and concepts, I feel the vivid reaction of the player is the best gauge as to how well it was reincarnated in the new body. If fans of the old games are often seen as purists, you can't possibly accuse the fans of the new game of having a tainted view of the original and how well the two connect.

In the case of HR, my personal view of it, in relation with the original post, is that there is a Sasquatch between the two. A missing link, so to speak. I cannot possibly imagine people playing the games in its chronological order, story-wise, immediately appreciating Deus Ex. In fact I'm rather convinced the opinion of those players would be in sync with the initial reaction of any gamers playing DX when it came out. Some of the HR fans would give up at Liberty Island, while others might stick to it.

Is my conclusion unfair, because of the time difference between the two? I don't think so, because there are instances of sequels with a vast period of time in between who have successfully passed this test. Besides, the time difference, or technological gap, is not wide enough to neutralize this conclusion. The main differences between the two are engineering ones, not technological (graphics notwithstanding).

One can prefer DX. Others may prefer HR. You can like both. I have no quarrel with any of those opinions. I disagree with the revamped thesis, however, even if there are definitely some great DX moments in HR. At the end of the day, I feel it fails my test. Simply put, would people recognize HR when they play DX?

(By the by, DX was not a franchise, and so far I still don't think it is possible to speak of it in this term. As a whole, if you take all the material produced so far about it, the sum has no definite identity.)

SageSavage
30th Oct 2014, 08:59
Many people will be especially irritated and frustrated by DX1s character skill-based shooting mechanics. To be honest, I can't blame them for that. When you expect standard player skill-based mechanics it immediately feels borked - especially with something like Liberty Island as starting point.

CyberP
30th Oct 2014, 11:04
Many people will be especially irritated and frustrated by DX1s character skill-based shooting mechanics. To be honest, I can't blame them for that. When you expect standard player skill-based mechanics it immediately feels borked - especially with something like Liberty Island as starting point.

Standing still gives you 100% accuracy if you're in good condition right at the start on lib island.
If you focus on it you can have a skill-based shooter pretty early on, between laser mods, accuracy mods, weapon skills and even the targeting aug if you want, just to be sure.
The system adds more depth and demands you use your head. There's thousands of shooting games out there, few try anything notably different. Those that dislike it don't like using their head, because there's no excuse when you can build your character to have 100% accuracy. :whistle:

Personally I want to add optional aim down the sights functionality, and accuracy when aiming down sights influences sway/hand tremble. When not ADS, aiming is vanilla.

68_pie
30th Oct 2014, 18:51
When you expect standard player skill-based mechanics it immediately feels borked - especially with something like Liberty Island as starting point.

Perhaps the problem is with their expectations. Or maybe they shouldn't skip the tutorial.

FrankCSIS
30th Oct 2014, 22:40
Many people will be especially irritated and frustrated by DX1s character skill-based shooting mechanics. When you expect standard player skill-based mechanics it immediately feels borked - especially with something like Liberty Island as starting point.

There's that (even if it's possible to very quickly build a great shooter), and everything else that sets them apart. A different objectives structure, a different narrative structure, a different character development structure, a different approach to alternate choices, a different type of transitions between level, a lack of direct guidelines and directions, a different approach to exploration, different type of resource management, etc. The transition from HR to DX would be extremely rocky to fans of HR looking, or expecting, a similar experience. In short, even if I'm using a bit of an intellectual shortcut here, we're dealing with two fairly separate identities, set in a similar fictional universe. QED ;)

Jerion
13th Nov 2014, 13:05
*Emerges from hermit cave*

I have to say that thinking about everything that makes the two games different to play on a moment to moment basis, and experience as a longer-term plot, HR is a decidedly simpler game. Does it have as much room for player character differentiation? Nope. Does it have that older RPG feeling of big open spaces with stuff to do that captured the imagination of invested players 10-15 years ago? Not really. In spite of those two things though, and despite the way that the stages of the last third of the game could have been arranged in a different order and it might have turned out better, Human Revolution feels put-together in a way that Deus Ex never was.

Let me explain that last sentence.

Take Alpha Centauri, the much-loved Civ-In-Space game that came out in the same time period as DX. Many people (including myself) came back to it again and again- because it gave our imaginations so much fertile ground to work with. Sister Miriam, one of the faction leaders in the game, was little more than the face of a faction whose entire purpose was to stab you in the back at the opportune moment. But because they gave her a little portrait of a face with an eminently punchable expression, our imaginations could go to work fleshing out her character. Alpha Centauri did this over and over, and was perfectly happy to let us fill in the narrative gaps ourselves. It was full of world-building smoke and mirrors, and that let people bond with it.

Deus Ex did the same thing all over the place. Smoke and mirrors everywhere to give the illusion of a wider world and actions with consequences. Subway stations with one platform, and city blocks that were oddly self-contained. Plot points that conveniently threw the adventure into entirely new directions and character threads that resurfaced hours later to hint to the player that if their choice ten hours ago meant that Sandra showed up again, maybe their other little actions had made a difference. A barrage of player skill options, equipment and augmentation upgrade paths to let the player shape their abilities in the world, building in redundant options to provide the perception of even more potentially play-style-defining choices than there actually were.

And you know what?

It worked. Magnificently. We fell in love with it.

Human Revolution, though, did away with much of that. It consolidated systems. It closed many of the the gaps, often by simply eliminating one side of the gap altogether. Gunplay was now player-driven, not character-driven. Skills were rolled into augmentations. It had a coherent aesthetic, both visually and musically. Consequences were often seen within minutes of the choice, and only occasionally hours afterward. It was more coherently and deliberately assembled, and it left fewer things open to the player’s imagination and interpretation. Even if on a functional level it achieved many of the same things, it felt simpler and less ambitious.

I think I’ve largely experienced and valued games from the “soft”, feel-of-the-experience perspective for quite a few years now. Outright badly-designed game mechanics will break a game for me, but the absence of many mechanics at all has never seriously deterred me from enjoying one. The narrative, and all the little things like the game setting and such are what draw me to a title. It’s why the more recent Fallout games appealed to me, and TES series never drew serious interest. It’s why I enthusiastically went after Dishonored, and still haven’t touched Arx Fatalis or embraced the Assassin’s Creed games (I'll get to them one day, just have the Dreamfall games to enjoy first). And it’s why, even if it was built differently, when I first played Human Revolution it felt like going home.

Games are built out of mechanics, rules and systems. If we evaluate the Deus Ex games strictly by those merits, they have separate identities. So maybe, as a *game* franchise, the DX titles really don’t have that much in common, and Frank is absolutely right. If viewed as gamified interactive fiction (which, I guess, is what I look for these days), these games are part of a single family. A mildly dysfunctional one, maybe.

So, TL;DR…I wouldn’t say DX 3 is a revamped DX1. It’s a competent, but hopelessly-in-the-shadow younger sibling. Or something like that.

CyberP
13th Nov 2014, 14:44
A different objectives structure, a different narrative structure, a different character development structure, a different approach to alternate choices, a different type of transitions between level, a lack of direct guidelines and directions, a different approach to exploration, different type of resource management, etc. The transition from HR to DX would be extremely rocky to fans of HR looking, or expecting, a similar experience. In short, even if I'm using a bit of an intellectual shortcut here, we're dealing with two fairly separate identities, set in a similar fictional universe. QED ;)

One is ambitious & deep, the other not so much.
One respects players, refuses to compromise & demands they use their heads, the other lacks courage to do the same.
One breaks standard design conventions magnificently, the other plays by the book.
One is an Immersive Sim, the other is not.

I still liked this "other" rather a lot regardless, but it didn't give me Deus Ex/a modern Immersive Sim. So instead I went and made a remastered Deus Ex 1, that's what my fans are saying!

I really hope DX4/Universe/Whatever is the next level. I do believe in them but do they have the perspective, the passion or even the power (SE is hopefully not holding them back).

FrankCSIS
14th Nov 2014, 02:34
*Emerges from hermit cave*

Always a pleasure!

I'll never blame you for approaching games from the soft side. I've walked many paths, but originated from the adventure genre. Hell before landing in here and reading what Cyber, or the ever-missed K^2 explained and detailed about mechanics, I don't think I knew a quarter of what went on behind the curtains of DX. I knew the narrative structure was unprecedented, and enjoyed the gameplay freedom.

I've no immediate beef with fewer mechanics, providing, as you said, they actually work. That's by far my biggest problem with AC. The lack of complexity I could easily deal with. But each of those bloody titles never allows you, for one second, to forget you're in a game, with rules and mechanics. As soon as you stop admiring the view and start moving about, all you ever see are the gears and bands. It's somewhat frightening they've never even attempted to address this issue, with so many titles in the series, and so much resources at their disposal. From the most rudimentary inventory-puzzle adventure games to the complex RPGs like BG, games have managed to successfully conceal their apparatus, yet AC completely fails to do it.


It was full of world-building smoke and mirrors, and that let people bond with it.

I think it's been abundantly clear over the past that this is what I miss the most. It's the textbook definition of interactivity. The experience I got out of it was mine and mine alone, because there is room for me to make it my own. Not only have I passively perceived it differently, I've actively built and added to it with my own baggage. And you did the same with yours, resulting in a similar feeling, but a different experience, for different reasons. You can't establish that connection with a more put together game, as you've eloquently said. That space, it's denied to the player. We've homogenised the experience, by ensuring we'd all be equals in terms of what we'd get out of the game. And I wish, with all my heart, the team would understand this for what it is, if any of the 2800 posts I've made had to be summed into one! Here's to wishing Sasha would read this!


I really hope DX4/Universe/Whatever is the next level.

Isn't that the reason we stick around? ;) With the right perspective, there were solid enough foundations to expand, both vertically and horizontally. I'm hoping they didn't just repaint the house or added a solarium to it.

CyberP
14th Nov 2014, 03:13
I've no immediate beef with fewer mechanics, providing, as you said, they actually work. That's by far my biggest problem with AC. The lack of complexity I could easily deal with. But each of those bloody titles never allows you, for one second, to forget you're in a game, with rules and mechanics.

Immersion is the icing on the cake for me. Not all games have to strive for new levels of immersion. I believe Assassins Creed simply fails to be engaging in its gameplay. Once this is rectified, then I'll crave more complexity & immersion from the series.


It's the textbook definition of interactivity. The experience I got out of it was mine and mine alone, because there is room for me to make it my own. Not only have I passively perceived it differently, I've actively built and added to it with my own baggage.


Isn't that the reason we stick around? ;) With the right perspective, there were solid enough foundations to expand, both vertically and horizontally. I'm hoping they didn't just repaint the house or added a solarium to it.

You're asking for more overall complexity, friend. I expect nothing less from a Deus Ex title/Immersive Sim. Invisible War would have been far better received if it were overall more complex. It was still undoubtedly an Immersive Sim in most respects, just considerably simplified in it's level design and gameplay. The plot was the least effected of the dumbing down "efforts", though it certainly wasn't exempt.

I still enjoy the more simplistic game if it offers something unique. However it by definition has less to offer, being simple. Complexity is only simplicity multiplied.
It is primarily why Deus Ex has much replayability potential while most of us have played IW or HR just a few times. I say "primarily why" because there are other factors of course, such as it featuring focused choice & consequence design or maybe it just being the "better" designed game.

Less is not always more. I remember getting a lone "Less is more" line as a response from a game developer I expected much from. Less is more in what context? Less is easier to polish, maintain & balance, yes. Less than Deus Ex levels of complexity is arguably easier to sell resulting in more money & growth, yes. Either way, it is a cop-out.
Not all games should be complex. The Immersive Sim however is the exception. Did your favorite Sci-Fi authors or TTRPG creators intentionally dumb down their works too, game developers?
Unfortunately gaming is still in its infancy and it and it's audience (including the "journalism") overall is shallow & immature, therein lies the true issue as to why games like Deus Ex are not in demand and publishers fear funding of them. In due time this will probably no longer be an issue.
Also writing, printing & promoting a book doesn't cost as much money as doing the same for games, of course.
Sigh, it is always about the money.

68_pie
14th Nov 2014, 15:31
Outright badly-designed game mechanics will break a game for me



the more recent Fallout games appealed to me

ummmm...

Lady_Of_The_Vine
14th Nov 2014, 16:35
I chucklked. :D

Pinky_Powers
14th Nov 2014, 18:40
Jerion, you pantsless weasel, good to see you. Long time.

What the hell is going on in this thread?

Everybody should be playing Shadows of Mordor. Deus Ex is for worms.

CyberP
15th Nov 2014, 01:50
ummmm...

New Vegas is God-tier.

Jerion
15th Nov 2014, 13:08
ummmm...

Hey, with some gameplay-polishing (via Project Nevada), Fallout New Vegas was excellent. FO3 had it's share of brokenness, but it was still satisfying back in 2008.


Jerion, you pantsless weasel, good to see you. Long time.


Likewise!

FrankCSIS
15th Nov 2014, 14:59
In earnest, New Vegas caused some tiny droplets of rain to fall from the corner of mine eyes. Great gameplay, sublime writing moments.

CyberP
15th Nov 2014, 15:23
In earnest, New Vegas caused some tiny droplets of rain to fall from the corner of mine eyes. Great gameplay, sublime writing moments.

My man.

I'm pretty sure I nagged you to play that one. Third in my favorite games of all time list. It really is a magnificent experience (and in nearly all respects an Immersive Sim).

AdrianShephard
15th Nov 2014, 16:25
Third in my favorite games of all time list.


What's your second? I assume DX is first (if not, leave ;))

CyberP
15th Nov 2014, 16:33
System Shock 2. Most of the classic uncompromising Im Sims make my top ten, then the list gets far more diverse in genre & on a number of platforms, including the first gameboy.
Yes, of course Deus Ex is #1.