PDA

View Full Version : A discussion of games and gamers - My ramblings about Deus Ex



StormFront
1st Dec 2007, 15:01
Okay, this is going to be a huge post: my apologies. If you are not interested in hearing someone ramble on about the Deus Ex series and gaming in general I advise you move on to other, smaller posts.

I’ve written this mostly for my own entertainment but hopefully someone else will find something useful here; maybe even the chaps making the new game, who knows.

A few things have been bugging me since this game was announced. The thing that bugged me most of all was my reaction to the announcement. I experienced about 4 seconds of “YES!” followed by an instant attack of “Oh no! We are going to get another terrible game.”. An odd reaction to have. You’d think the possibility of another Deus Ex, another great game would please me, but no, I instantly assume it will be garbage.

Therefore the first thing I want to consider is that attitude; the expectancy from gamers that “New Game X” will be bad if it is the sequel to something we liked. The attitude seems to be mostly prevalent in PC gamers and the level of pessimism is directly proportional to the quality (perceived or otherwise) of the previous game. I say it is mostly a PC gamer issue as you don’t se this attitude elsewhere. No one cried out in horror when Silent Hill 2 or 3 was announced. No one wailed and moaned when Solid Snake’s next outing was confirmed. A new Mario (even after Sunshine) is still cause for jubilation and fervent speculation as to how GOOD it will be, not how poorly it will measure up to Mario 64.

Why is this? Have PC gamers been so downtrodden, so badly treated? What has happened previously that has made us all such cynics?

I have looked through my (idiotically extensive) library of PC games to see if there is a reason; if anything can explain this reaction. Over the years I am certain that there have been many, many bad games but if asked to provide examples my list runs out of steam quite quickly. Sure Dungeon Keeper 2 was terrible and I’d normally cite DX:IW, Tribes 3, TOCA: Race Driver and… errr… well. That’s about as far as I get with “bad” games, the rest of the time I appear to have been merely “disappointed”.

But what was I disappointed about? Well often it is the fault of the devs and their publishers over-hyping how their game “WILL REDEFINE GAMING” for me and change my life utterly. For me Half Life 2 is a classic example of this. We had years of hyperbole and bragging from Valve about the physics, the non-scripted AI, the real time lighting, the immense texture quality, the character detail and so on then when the game was delivered most of this had been stripped out as they could not get it run on current technology. As a result (and as a result of the farce that was STEAM) I loathed that game like no other. The very thought of it made veins throb on my forehead and spittle fleck at my mouth. All that was needed to prevent that though was either the company to be realistic about their abilities or for me not to have read so many previews. The same situation applied with DX:IW. For about 2 years before its release we were told over and over how their real time lighting engine would totally revolutionise game play allowing us to use light and shadow as a gameplay mechanic. They waxed idiotically lyrical about totally open ended gameplay with complete freedom to do anything we wished while all the time dealing with advanced AI who would think and react to our every action. In the end the final product could not have been further form the truth.
So, was I wrong to believe the hype? Many would argue that I was, that I should have been realistic but I reject that utterly. If I buy a car, or a can opener or a pair of socks I need them to do what they say they can do. Nothing more, nothing less. Again here people would argue that it is not the same, that a game is no more bound by truth and honesty than a feature film, but again I find fault with this idea. A film is a transient thing: passive entertainment that requires nothing from you but your attention and that takes up no more than 3 hours of your time. A game is far more substantive, requires a far greater commitment (technology, time and money) and is something we then own. Admittedly films are something we can own as well but no one is likely to dash out and but a DVD without having seen the film first and being allowed to judge if they like it therefore the expenditure (money and time) is much less. SO why are we expected to simply accept being ripped off and lied to by game producers? Well I think the answer is the terminology we use. Pac-Man is a game. Gin-Rummy is a game. Monopoly is a game. Games are distractions or artifices, designed to either fill time or enable social activity. How can Deus Ex, Morrowind, Silent Hill 2 be classed as games as well? Surely they are more like interactive experiences or player-led dramas? Obviously games, in the true sense, are available on computers and consoles and are still very popular and I’ll admit that we employ these more advanced forms of “games” for the same reason as their predecessors, but isn’t it time the distinction was made clear?

If a new “game” is announced that promises me nothing more than entertainment and is honest about the form that it will take I have a very good chance of knowing whether or not I will like it before purchase. Tetris clones are Tetris clones, SHMUPS are SHMUPS and Mario Kart is just that: I know where I am and what to expect. But what if something promises me new forms of interaction or ground breaking new dynamics that will “allow you to change the outcome of events!!!”? How do I judge this? What measure can I hold it to? The answer is none because the people designing it are not themselves held to any measure. Beyond time and technology game designers are held to no constraints. They can simply claim whatever they like and no one is allowed any recourse against them as it is “just a game”, so who cares if they lied?

This is, I believe, what is causing the cynicism in gamers today. The carrot of “here’s the game you always wanted!” is dangled before us every day but we rarely get to actually take a bite. The idiotic thing is that game designers do not see the harm it does to them. If they release a game that actually meets the hype because they were honest about what they could do, they will be seen in an infinitely better light than if they lie. It does not matter how good the final game actually is, if it does not measure up to the hype, no one will be listening.

And this brings me, finally, to Deus Ex. When DX:IW launched I, like many, many, many others went ballistic. Not only because of the lack of resemblance to the first game, but also because it was nothing like what was promised. Had they billed it as a Deus Ex style game with a decent graphical update then I would not have minded the end product so much. But no, the promises and hyperbole came thick and fast and our expectations soared.

In order to test this out I have just replayed DX:IW but this time I was determined to see the good and ignore what was not delivered: the result was interesting. First things first some stuff was just broken, predominantly due to it being ported to the xbox:

• The levels are TINY
• The rag-dolling and physics are just idiotic
• The inventory was made by Fisher Price
• The Texturing and model detail was VERY weak
• Over simplification of items
• Unified ammo
• Terrible performance and constant bugs/crashing

All of these are still true but are clearly down to the limitations of the XBOX rather than the incompetence of the designers so, for now I’ll put them to one side.
So what were my other complaints with the game at the time? Let’s examine:

Lack of exploration
This is one of the first things that struck me about IW. After the freedom of tearing round in DX1, IW felt far too linear. In each section of the game there are only a few different things you can do and only a few ways they can be done.
This still holds true but I think it needs to be looked at differently. The reason there appears to be so little to do is that the areas are so small. Imagine how different Seattle would have felt had it been all one area! The academy, the mall, the bar, the apartments, the inclinator, the club, the church and herons Loft all joined into one unit. At that point you would in fact have had MORE to do than in a level of Deus Ex! On top of that, if we have removed the XBOX limitations from the equation we can also multiply the number of NPCs by at least 10 and the quantity of physics object by a similar amount. Just picture that for a moment. Imagine how different it would have been, how open and interactive it would have been. Imagine how much more impact you killing someone would have had if you didn’t have the load points to block your actions from view.

Actions have no effect
This criticism was levelled at IW a great deal but, if you can push past all the stuff above and actually look at it with a slightly more open mind I am not so sure. Right from the start of IW you are given total freedom to pick who you want to side with. Sure the sides presented are a little annoying, but that does not make them less real, in fact it possibly does quite the opposite. You are essentially a teenager fresh out of school. Sure you have some biomods, but that hardly makes you unique in the world. As you progress the Order tries to sway you toward themselves and for the most part presents reasonable arguments. The WTO meanwhile simply expects you to fall into line as the soldier you are supposed to be. In truth none of this is unreasonable but it for some reason it struck a lot of players wrong. Deus Ex comparatively gave you no choices for the first sections of the game. You worked for UNATCO and that was that. Once you learn that Paul has sided with the NFS then things change but only ideologically because you still carry on in your assigned duties. The later sections of the game you are admittedly no longer in anyone’s employ, but you are still being guided by individuals, notable Tracer Tong. IW at least tries to give you options about whose objectives YOU want to complete. You can in fact alienate some of the powers, or at least anger them, quite quickly in IW: no such thing exists in Deus Ex.

They removed the Skill System
This was a big favourite of mine in Deus Ex. The progression this added to the game and the impetus it gave you to experiment and explore was great. Also the feeling you had when, in the later portion of the game, your character was hugely powerful was highly enjoyable.
But… why was a $5 billion dollar, nano-augmented super agent so completely talentless? He couldn’t fire any weapons skilfully, had no technical abilities and could swim less distance under water than your average 12 year old. What’s going on?
In an attempt to address this IW disposed of the skill development and instead tried to give you better options with the biomods while giving a set level of competence to other more basic skills.
Problem is I think both implementations are wrong. Having the skill development there gave the game a real sense of character development that I think should be kept, but having JC start off so blatantly incompetent made no sense. The answer? Split it down the middle. Have a similar set of skills to that of Deus Ex but give the player a large amount of starting points to spend. That way you can decide from the get go what your character can do. So you could either decide that their training was all about the guns and that you are an expert sniper as soon as you step out or that you are purely into covert activities and are therefore a master computer hacker. If neither of those grabs you, scatter the points around to indicate that your character dabbled in everything. This still leaves the opportunity for your character to progress as they make their way through the game but gives them a definite and more logical starting advantage over the masses.

So, if the technological limitations had not afflicted IW I believe it still would have been a flawed game, but much less so. Having all the levels knitted back together would have allowed a greater feeling of immersion for the player and I think more people would have been hooked into the stories and characterisations that were going on. This alone could have made a huge difference to how it was received in my opinion particularly if some of the other “cut down” memory saving devices were also absent.

How does any of this matter for Deus Ex 3 then? Well, while I have no love at all for the 360 and I am happy to hammer on about the PCs technical superiority, it is in no way a bad console. While it does have limitations they are not so severe that they will utterly cripple a future PC game should its code be optimised for it (so long as we assume a good level of competence from our coders), and I think this is very encouraging. I think the places in which IW tried to improve on the originals formula were, now the flames of rage have died, actually reasonably successful. If such moves forward can be made again but this time without the hideous shackles of a pathetically weak platform I see no reason to be pessimistic. All that is needed is for the developers to be honest with us about there plans and for them to not try and completely reinvent the wheel. The Deus Ex universe is ripe for exploration and expansion and it already offers enough over other more standard games that it does not need to stretch itself to succeed. Free form gameplay and good character interaction are still rare enough that employing them well will almost ensure a hit game.

So, to sum up the meanderings of my addled brain: As long as Eidos Montreal don’t try and convince us that their moon is a space station and as long as they acknowledge that console gaming does not mean gaming for 5 year olds, I think I can actually allow myself to look forward to this title.

Kneo24
1st Dec 2007, 18:41
That's a very interesting post, and I think I have to agree here. It's all about expectations. A more recent game that everyone is like "OMG ITS REVOLUTIONARY!!!1111" is Crysis. I'm sorry, there is nothing revolutionary about that game. To me, it felt like a cheap cyberpunk wannabe with better AI and better looks. I can safely say that's one game I won't buy. Even after pushing the difficulty as high as it would go did I not derive any enjoyment. Had I expected a different experience, I probably would have enjoyed the demo.

IW was a different experience. I went in knowing that it was not like the original in a lot of ways. I still derived enjoyment from it because I had acquired that previous knowledge. IW wasn't terrible. It's just a mediocre game with a lot of bugs that would have been nice to have been stomped before release to the PC.

StormFront
1st Dec 2007, 19:06
Thank you. As I said, this is mostly just me thinking out loud and trying to reason with myself.

Gaming is my greatest passion and my most enjoyable passtime, but over the last few years I have found myself becoming increasingly embittered towards it and I was uncertain as to why. This year, for example, I have only enjoyed 4 games on PC: STALKER, Portal, Timeshift and Crysis. Meanwhile the press is declaring 2007 to be one of the greatest years for gaming ever.

I either need to learn to love this medium again and accept its foibles or I need to find a new pastime. I'm hoping that applying logic to, as in this post, will help me to do that.

humbug
1st Dec 2007, 19:36
I agree Storm Front.

DX:IW was the biggest game let down I have ever experianced I have only played it once and I don't plan to play it again. My main gripe was the fact that I never seemed to have any ammo so I didn't feel that I could go exploring.

The trouble is that DX is an awesome game and in my opinion still a ground breaker. Therefore it will be hard for future DX games to live up to it, but I shall remain optimistic!

I notice you have played Timeshift I was thinking of buying it when I get my new PC, so would you recommend it?

StormFront
1st Dec 2007, 20:27
I would have to say that Timeshift is very "by the numbers". It does nothing ground breaking and has no really big "WOW" moments. Howver, everything it does, it does well. The gameplay is consistently enjoyable, the boss battles well pitched and the time puzzles genuinely amusing.

I would recommend it, yes.

eightbits
1st Dec 2007, 21:16
Well, it's not that PC gamers are being down trodden. It is that franchises are not handled correctly.

1. Movies. I disagree with your statement about people not buying movies sight-unseen. I do this all the time. A lot of people do this all the time. However, movie viewers fit into this same group. I constantly hear about people talking about the terrible movies coming out and it is assumed that a sequel will suck. There are exceptions, like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. People didn't assume the sequels would suck. They assumed they would be awesome.

2. Cars. Yes, it's time for the inevitable bad car analogy. Remember the Mustang? I was running around in classic/muscle car circles for years and all I ever heard about the mustangs designed in the mid 70s through the mid 90s is just how terrible they were. They were nothing like the mustangs of the 60s that people loved. They lacked the character, even if they did have the horsepower. One thing to understand about the original mustang was that is was a 6 cylinder with little horse power. But it looked sexy as hell. They later added horsepower and it still looked sexy as hell. By the mid 80s, it looked like a variant of the Ford Escort. Not sexy at all.

3. Computers. We take the way back machine to the Commodore's Amiga line and we see the 3000's sequel the 4000. It was a steaming piece of crap and Amiga fans to this day will tell you the best Amiga ever released was the Amiga 3000. This is also true of other computers and consoles. The Sega Saturn. The Intellivision II.

The problem has nothing to do with PC games. It has to do with sequels within franchises. Let's take a look at the old gold box DnD games from SSI in the 80s. The entire line, including sequels was massively successful. Final Fantasy has been pretty damn successful as well. There is a long list of successful franchises in various industries that have been successful. Why?

The reason is that the original release in a given franchise defines the franchise. There is *something* about that release that is just . . . special. That *something* needs to be identified and understood before working on a sequel. If that is done and it is kept in the successors to the original release, the franchise will probably be successful. Regardless of the industry, sequels that do not do this inevitably fail.

So, the key here is to identify what made the original Deus Ex so loved and so successful as to be called by many the best game of all time. I am a Commodore 64 fanatic and if you ask me to list the top 10 games of all time, they will all be C64 games, except for slot number 1, which belongs to the original Deus Ex. So yeah, Deus Ex had something special and I think we have done a decent job in this forum listing what we all have thought was special about the game. Deus Ex Invisible War had nothing that made Deus Ex special and that is why it failed in the eyes of the fan base.

We have received confirmation that the game developers are receiving feedback from this forum's content. As long as they are able to sort through the cruft and identify the key points that made Deus Ex special and understand those points, I think they will have the tools they need to revive the franchise and make the third game successful too.

Innuendo13
1st Dec 2007, 23:09
Gaming is my greatest passion and my most enjoyable passtime, but over the last few years I have found myself becoming increasingly embittered towards it and I was uncertain as to why. This year, for example, I have only enjoyed 4 games on PC: STALKER, Portal, Timeshift and Crysis.Have you played Bioshock? This one is not a typical shooter.
Meanwhile the press is declaring 2007 to be one of the greatest years for gaming ever.What a load of horse... Don't trust any of this. The press is bribed, they say what the publishers tell them.

ltolman
2nd Dec 2007, 00:12
I too have been a computer gamer for a very long time. I have owned about 30 PC Games before I even bought my own PC; I had went over to my friends house and used his for the duration.

I enjoy all kinds of computer games. Feel free to visit my homepage and click 'My Games' to see all what I have excluding the past months worth of games I bought.

http://www.larrytolman.com/

Every year technology changes, so for computer businesses or whomever to say "we are redifining" should just be a given. I dont think, and maybe I'm wrong that people today wil not find decent computer games in a year or two from now.

A classic example is Hitman: Contracts, I played H:C beat it, then I played Hitman: Blood Money and found that H:BM was a lot better than H:C so then I try and replay H:C and its like, wow semi out dated graphics and where is this option oh yeah thats right only in H:BM

I hear you on this, a lot of the times franchises can make a sequel or what not and screw it all up and cause horrible player reaction to any more games. One that comes to mind is Driver; the original Driver for the PC, that was pretty decent but when #2 came out, for some odd reason it wasnt working right with my PC, I am not too sure why and I think Driver 3 was not very good key customized and what not; I was hoping to try #4 lol

On the other hand there are other decent franchises going on that always improves their games and each step is "to them" like a new revolution. You also got to keep in mind that when people develop the games they cant just make a game overnight or let alone with the course of 1 year. They need to make sure they appeal to the following years because otherwise they'll just make a quick buck and thats it. Anyways I was gonna mention a couple other games that comes to mind:

Elder Scroll Series: Granted I played Daggerfall, a bit of Battlespire and Morrowind but also I've played Oblivion. Each game they make they say is remade from the ground up. They may not have too much in common, they definitely dont keep the same story but all in all their games tend to improve, now if you play Daggerfall; the one game that brought me into the Elder Scrolls is very 2d'ish and you just laugh at how they made a game compared to Oblvion 10 years later. Oblvion was announced in 2002 I believe and released in 2006 or was in 2004 and released in 2006; either way they spent a good time making the game.

Tomb Raider Series: They made Tomb Raiders all the way to Legend then remade a classic: "Tomb Raider Anniversary"; note the words "remake, classic" I believe that Tomb Raider Anniversary made decent ratings, it probably scored 7-10; maybe averaging 8.5 I'm not sure.

I never played a Tomb Raider until Legend so I was anticipating a cool graphics engine for Tomb Raider Anniversary.

So perhaps the question should be given here: If you loved Deus Ex 1; would you be willing to replay 1 with a better graphics engine and up to date technology? Perhaps thats what they are wanting to do? Also the teaser possibly suggests a prequel which means #3 may take place before Deus Ex 1, but hopefully I'm sure will be up to date technology.

Direct X 10.0 wasnt released til January 2007
Direct X 10.1 is coming in January 2008

Direct X 10.0 Cards wasnt released til 2007 either (end of 2006 maybe)

but now I hear that ATI is about to release a 1024mb Video card and NVidia is working on a GeForce 9 family with who knows with what support.

Crysis is a game all by itself, its the first and only game so far to use the CryEngine 2; Far Cry 2 is underway but is NOT using the CryEngine 2. Crysis is a trilogy so expect 2 and 3 but as far as when it will be released and how they plan on increasing the technology is another thing.

I guess my point on this, is again in relation to the advertisements to gaming; yes I've seen them say "will perform this, or a breakthrough of technology" and "2007 is the best year in gaming" but as I think another poster said on this thread is that its just a marketing ploy; every year technology changes so likewise every game will have its own splendor :)

StormFront
2nd Dec 2007, 00:22
@inuendo13 - Yes I've played Bioshock. It is a staggeringly, staggeringly bad game IMO

@Itolman
- DX10.1 is out quarter 2-3 2008
- The fiirst 1024MB GFX card came out 4 months ago
- Far Cry 2 is gategorically using the CryEngine 2 - thats the point...
- GeForce 9 will bout quarter 3 2008 and will be a DX10.1 card

Just thought I'd clear some things up there.... other than that you make some good points

Kneo24
2nd Dec 2007, 01:12
I thought Oblivion was a disappointment. It was just a single player MMO. Very few of the side quests pertained to the actual plot, and the plot itself was poorly written. The bajillion side quests should have meant something, but they didn't. Interaction between NPC's was crap, to say the least. I didn't care how my quests affected them. If you actively try to do the main quest, you can probably beat the game in a day or so. A games story should pull you in. It should make you care about your player and their world and the people in it.

Becoming the head of a guild was a joke too. Once you were the head of any guild, it just felt like "so what?". That was it. There wasn't anything to do. Why couldn't I amass some sort of army? Couldn't I refurbish the place? How about hiring and firing my cohorts?

I don't think Oblivion really delivered what it promised via immersion and that's why I was disappointed. I honestly wouldn't pay for the game.

Actually, I find myself not buying a lot of games these days because of the disappointment factor. As always, it boils down to not being delivered what was promised.

JSDonald
2nd Dec 2007, 10:08
Excellent post, IMO, and some very valid points StormFront.

I am a member of another forum and the first thing I asked when I found out about DX3 (and its inevitable PC and console concurrent development) was: What are the main limitaitons of the XBox360 and PS3 (and the engine they've chosen to employ)?

If the devs address the woeful problems that plagued IW (the tiny levels, over-simplification and, IMO, quite boring story compared with the original), it'll be a significant step in the right direction.

IceBallz
2nd Dec 2007, 13:36
Good post, StormFront. All your text was so correct.

I remember the connection betwin devs and fans when Stalker was under construction. I was in their community forums and wrote ideas i had in my mind. Like the idea that i gave them, about set sound trigger to bushes. That later on shown to be set into the final game. Or like the weapon manfunction system and weapon jamming, was one of my ideas. So i really enjoyed to buy and play Stalker, like 1000's of 1000's of others.

Just becurse, they was not out for a graphical wonderpiece and they listen to our ideas. So they got a game of realism and interactivity. In this way graphics don't take all of gamers mind. So i hope Eidos take a good look on the small things that makes Stalker.
Set things to the feeling of, that you actually move in the game. Like bushes make sound when you walk into them or guns jamming when those are in bad shape.

Like in Deus Ex, you could pick up a basketball and throw it away. That was interactive and nice feeling.

Dave W
2nd Dec 2007, 13:47
tldr.

Xcom
2nd Dec 2007, 18:09
So, was I wrong to believe the hype? Many would argue that I was, that I should have been realistic but I reject that utterly. If I buy a car, or a can opener or a pair of socks I need them to do what they say they can do. Nothing more, nothing less.


I hear this kind of analogies all the time and I certainly share your sentiments, but yes, you're wrong to believe the hype. Or perhaps I should phrase it more accurately: if your level of expectation is based on a hype, you're destined to be disappointed 9 out of 10 times. Hypes are created to sell product; nothing more, nothing less. ;) I mean seriously -- marketing exists for a reason. Have you ever seen a company that says, "Hey, this is our new product, but you know what, it kind of sucks, so think twice before you buy it." I haven't.


Beyond time and technology game designers are held to no constraints. They can simply claim whatever they like and no one is allowed any recourse against them as it is “just a game”, so who cares if they lied?

Is it really different from any other industry? One needs to distinguish what lying actually is. Saying that a car has 500 bhp whereas in reality it only has 200, is misinformation. However, saying that a game has groundbreaking gameplay and stunning graphics is not, even if you disagree. The latter is a subjective opinion. Heck, a good portion of multi-billion cosmetics industry exists only because of that: "This amazing creme will make you look 20 years younger!" Sounds familiar? Not a lie, because you can't prove that it doesn't. Yes, I also don't like deceptive ads, but it's just how things are. Of course, we can blame evil nature of capitalism, but what's the point really?

Just for the record, I picked up DX: Invisible War and Thief 3 (bundled together) for $5,99 from a bargain bin. For that kind of money IW was an excellent game. :D



I thought Oblivion was a disappointment.


:eek: I am speechless.

StormFront
2nd Dec 2007, 18:39
I hear this kind of analogies all the time and I certainly share your sentiments, but yes, you're wrong to believe the hype. Or perhaps I should phrase it more accurately: if your level of expectation is based on a hype, you're destined to be disappointed 9 out of 10 times. Hypes are created to sell product; nothing more, nothing less. ;) I mean seriously -- marketing exists for a reason. Have you ever seen a company that says, "Hey, this is our new product, but you know what, it kind of sucks, so think twice before you buy it." I haven't.

I guess you are right. I suppose that this is just ego: I want MY passions to be held to a higher level. ;)
We will always be destined for a fall if we buy all that marketing is trying to sell.



Just for the record, I picked up DX: Invisible War and Thief 3 (bundled together) for $5,99 from a bargain bin. For that kind of money IW was an excellent game. :D


At that money it would have been less painful. Also you were clearly nowere near "on the edge of your seat" about the release as I was!
I actually got an American pe-release or DX:IW shipped over especially. I got to play it a week before it launched and spent a good geal of time spitting blood on the forum (It's lucky that I lost my old login: Catman would probably faint at the thought of having to mod me again!:rasp: )

As for being dissapointed by Oblivion: I can sort of relate to that. While it is a technical masterpiece in many ways, it lost the "fantasy world" element of Morrowind. Vardenfell always felt like a dangerous, alien world were you were the outsider, lost and alone. Cyrodil was just too damned clean and nice for my tastes. A damned fine game none the less, but I hope the look to Morrowind for more inspiration next time.

Oh, and thanks for reading all my gibberish!:)

Xcom
2nd Dec 2007, 19:37
Also you were clearly nowere near "on the edge of your seat" about the release as I was!

That's true; I was just cautiously enthusiastic. Admittedly, I went through a cynicism phase long time ago. :p

Kneo24
3rd Dec 2007, 00:24
I thought Oblivion was a disappointment.:eek: I am speechless.

I guess I dance to a different beat. The game did impress me with its technical aspects, but that only takes a game so far. I like my games to be enjoyable in every way. Perhaps the next saga in the Elder Scrolls series will deliver where Oblivion lacked. I was a little harsh when I said I wouldn't pay for it. I really don't believe it's worth the current asking price.

Do the expansions to it add anything other than the same type of mind numbing quests? That could significantly change my opinion.

StormFront
3rd Dec 2007, 00:44
I guess I dance to a different beat. The game did impress me with its technical aspects, but that only takes a game so far. I like my games to be enjoyable in every way. Perhaps the next saga in the Elder Scrolls series will deliver where Oblivion lacked. I was a little harsh when I said I wouldn't pay for it. I really don't believe it's worth the current asking price.

Do the expansions to it add anything other than the same type of mind numbing quests? That could significantly change my opinion.

I have to ask. It's an SPRPG right? What else did you think it was gonna do?
Sure the "clockwork" characters are a bit wierd and yes when you become uber-L33T king of everything not much happens. But with an RPG like this the point is the journey, not the arrival surely?
I'm not saying you're wrong: I agree with your points, just want more details.

Xcom
3rd Dec 2007, 01:12
Do the expansions to it add anything other than the same type of mind numbing quests?

I'm afraid if you put it like this, then no. They, of course, added extra gameplay and some new stuff.

What played hugely significant role in Oblivion for me (also in MWD, btw) is the modding ability thereof. I spent ten times as much time messing around with Construction Set than I had playing the game. You said you can't refurbish a house or hire people. Obviously, you can ..using mods or CS. You can build your own house. I mean the game has thousands of mods. It's worth checking out.

Kneo24
3rd Dec 2007, 03:07
I have to ask. It's an SPRPG right? What else did you think it was gonna do?
Sure the "clockwork" characters are a bit wierd and yes when you become uber-L33T king of everything not much happens. But with an RPG like this the point is the journey, not the arrival surely?
I'm not saying you're wrong: I agree with your points, just want more details.

I grew up playing RPG's where the story and plot were the driving points of the game, not mindless questing. Sure, in the older ones there was a lot of grinding to gain a level, but the story and the way it was presented was interesting enough to have kept me drawn in.

gamer0004
3rd Dec 2007, 17:57
I thought Oblivion was fun... I don't know why, but I liked the sidequests and I cared about the NPC's.
Played Bioshock for a while, too. I didn't like it. THAT was a game I didn't care for.
About DX:IW: yes, you had a lot of freedom. But because of that the whole story was crap. Only in the last part of the game it made any difference.
Besides that you didn't know anything about all the organisations. I still don't know what Tarsus garduates were supposed to be going to do. I don't know what the WTO did. They made enclaves, but did they actually run the country? Were they the new government?
Because of the freedom you didn't care for what you had to do. And it made the NPC's react in a strange way... You had to do every part of the game no matter what, so you always had to fight the same enemy, no matter which organisation you preferred. And a few hours later, having only nearly survived the shooting of the Templar soldiers they want you to work for them?
Yeah right... So much freedom of choice is no good in a game, because they can't make a game which is completely different depending on the organisation you join. Because they can't use certain maps for certain sides, so the game length will become extremely short. And if they do, it will be quite stupid, like in DX:IW.

StormFront
4th Dec 2007, 08:03
About DX:IW: yes, you had a lot of freedom. But because of that the whole story was crap. Only in the last part of the game it made any difference.
Besides that you didn't know anything about all the organisations. I still don't know what Tarsus garduates were supposed to be going to do. I don't know what the WTO did. They made enclaves, but did they actually run the country? Were they the new government?
Because of the freedom you didn't care for what you had to do. And it made the NPC's react in a strange way... You had to do every part of the game no matter what, so you always had to fight the same enemy, no matter which organisation you preferred. And a few hours later, having only nearly survived the shooting of the Templar soldiers they want you to work for them?
Yeah right... So much freedom of choice is no good in a game, because they can't make a game which is completely different depending on the organisation you join. Because they can't use certain maps for certain sides, so the game length will become extremely short. And if they do, it will be quite stupid, like in DX:IW.

I genuinely cannot believe I am going to do this:scratch: , but DX:IW does need defending here:eek: :

You say that you did not understand who any of that factions were, why you were working for them, what they did or what their views were, but every single thing in the game is explained fully.

The entire history of Tarsus is made clear, the reason for the attack on the school (they were renegades) and what the WTOs history and agenda was. You also had the power to utterly alienate each and everyone of these groups, but you always end up working for someone, even if it just Tong (RPGs need an Agent Provocateur - You are not going to discover anything on your own)

This is not to say I don't understand why you have said what you have. Until I replayed IW the other day I would have agreed with you fully. The absolute shambles that was made of that game from an engine point of view utterly blinkered me to anything good that game had to offer.

In truth though the plot, the factions and the way events unfold in IW actually makes a lot more sense and is considerably more detailed than in DX. The reason most people don't see this is becasue from a technical stand point, the game is a total shambles. Now I am not saying you are wrong for not having unearthed this: a game should be easily accessable. You should not have to overlook the blundering errors of a dev team in order to ejoy a game: that is just ridiculous.

However, as one gamer to another, I would say you would do yourself a great favour to give IW another go. Look past the terrible interface and the shoddy graphics. Ignore the cellular levels and download the latest texture pack (this helps a LOT!) and give it another go. The plot beneath all that cruft is a good one and, when played with an open mind, the game can offer enjoyment (just close your eyes when it's loading! :nut: :mad2: ) After all, DX3 is going to continue where IW left off, so knowing what happened will be of value....

JSDonald
4th Dec 2007, 11:56
After all, DX3 is going to continue where IW left off, so knowing what happened will be of value....

You know this for sure?

StormFront
4th Dec 2007, 12:42
You know this for sure?

Of course I don't know this, but it is a reasonable assumption. It would be a very strange thing for them to completely ignore all that has gone before when writing the 3rd part for a series.

I also think that the video we have seen so far hints at at least 1 or a combination fo several of the endings of IW.

My speculation would be that the "JCD overmind" ending happened but that either it "didn't take" fully or people fond a way to break out from it (I assume this only becasue this is the only ending were JC survives...). This could then lead to the stories behind those images.

Then again I suppose there is still a chance of a prequal.

Then again, again there is the chance that they will do something completely new: I just hope that they don't.

gamer0004
4th Dec 2007, 14:22
...
I did give it another go. I finished the game three times and started 5 new games (DX: finished 7 times and started 15 new games).
And I didn't think the HUD sucked (though I think I'm the only one in this world).
And I liked the gameplay: shooting was way more fun than it was in DX.
BUT: there weren't enough options (like: am I going to kill the guar or evade him, or am I going to look for an alternative route?), mainly it came down to shooting everyone in sight, because:
A) It was more fun
B) It was easier.
"B)" is actually strange for a game called Deus Ex. In DX, you were able to choose an alternative route at the cost of some lockpicks and/or multitools (or you could look for a coomputer). In DX:IW you could too, but then there were greasels or things like that, so it was easier to just kill everyone, AND you didn't lose multitools that way.
About the story: the ONLY thing you know about the world as it is in DX:IW is that the WTO has some enclaves and that the rest (the poor) live in "slums". Besides that we know very little.
I mean, the WTO provides safety. In the slums there is no police (or you would think so), but somewhere (I think it was in Heron's Loft) you can hear a police siren. So there IS police? But why? The game is very vague about that. Is there any form of government (besides the WTO in the enclaves)?
You don't know. Maybe the WTO is the new government, even outside the enclaves. But there is not a single fact or hint that indicates that it is.
There are no e-mails, no newspapers and the same amount of datacubes as in DX. The newspapers in part I were great! Because of these you know how the world is in DX. There IS a president in the US, there are senators, so nothing has changed (politically). The communists still rule China.
But in DX:IW you know nothing about the political situation.

And in DX people talked about the government and conspiracies, but they didn't in IW. When the guy of Taaaaalk Bullit got killed, no one talked about it.
That's a bit unrealistic...

StormFront
4th Dec 2007, 14:35
To play devils advocate here :


I did give it another go. I finished the game three times and started 5 new games (DX: finished 7 times and started 15 new games).
And I didn't think the HUD sucked (though I think I'm the only one in this world).
And I liked the gameplay: shooting was way more fun than it was in DX.
BUT: there weren't enough options (like: am I going to kill the guar or evade him, or am I going to look for an alternative route?), mainly it came down to shooting everyone in sight, because:
A) It was more fun
B) It was easier.


This tells the whole story. Because in IW your billion dollar nano soldier could actually use a gun unlike that muppet JC Denton, then yes: it was easier to kill people. This was YOUR decision though, not the games.


"B)" is actually strange for a game called Deus Ex. In DX, you were able to choose an alternative route at the cost of some lockpicks and/or multitools (or you could look for a coomputer). In DX:IW you could too, but then there were greasels or things like that, so it was easier to just kill everyone, AND you didn't lose multitools.

Again, this is just not true. Thre are LOTS of different ways of accomplishing EVERY task within IW. LOTS. You just took to killing everyone though so..


About the storie: the ONLY thing you know about the world as it is in DX:IW is that the WTO has some enclaves and that the rest (the poor) live in "slums". Besides that we know very little.
I mean, the WTO provides safety. In the slums there is no police (or you would think so), but somewhere (I think it was in Heron's Loft) you heard a police siren. So there IS police? But why? The game is very vague about that. Is there any form of government (besides the WTO in the enclaves)?
You don't know. Maybe the WTO is the new government, even outside the enclaves. But there is not a single text or hint that indicates that it is.
There are no e-mails, no newspapers and the same amount of datacubes as in DX. The newspapers in part I were great! By those you knew how the world was like in 2052. There IS a president in the US, there are senators, so nothing has changed (politically). The communists still rule China.
But in DX:IW you know nothing about the political situation.
Okay there are no emails but there is a TON of other stuff. COnverstaions (overheard or interactive), books, newspapers... the list goes on. The FULL details of EVERY faction was there to be uncovered by the player, but nothing was handed to you. If you just walked through blindly playing "yes" boy for the factions then you learnt nothing and acted as only their servant.



And in DX people talked about the government and conspiracies, but they didn't in IW. When the guy of Taaaaalk Bullit got killed, no one talked about it.
So that was stupid, too.

Yes they did to the first bit, not sure what you mean by the second comment?

As I say, I am still no advocate of IW as I hope my post at the top should demonstrate. Howwever a lot of peoples complaints (and yours are merely a good example) are utter fabrications produced as resultant lashback to the terrible engine design and poor decisions.

I am hammering on about this because it is staggeringly important. DX3 is going to be VERY, VERY different than DX1, mostly because they would like it to.. sell a few copies, ya know?

If everyone is still going to be as blimkered (as I was) that anything that claims to be DX but looks "funny" is a bad game, then this project is doomed from the start...

Hope I'm making sense here...:confused:

gamer0004
4th Dec 2007, 16:08
You could very well use a gun in DX. The first time I finished the game killing most of the enemies.

No, in DX:IW there are very few ways you can complete certain tasks.
It was (mostly) either kill the guard(s) or try to avoid them.

There are NO newspapers in DX:IW. There are only a few (different) books.

About the taaalk bullit guy: in DX:IW there are public newsthings (I can't remember what they were exactely). One part of the newsitems was an interview (TAAALLLKK BULLIT) whit certain people. In the last talk bullit the interviewer got killed by Order Templar soldiers.

Personally I rate DX:IW 8/10. And I have played the game very often and I read almost everything I can in games and I listen to NPC's a lot to hear interesting things, and I know I haven't missed ANY information in the game. And it wasn't enough for me.
Did like the Versalife-researchers-going-on-expedition-on-antartica-thing datacubes.

StormFront
4th Dec 2007, 18:56
:scratch:


You could very well use a gun in DX. The first time I finished the game killing most of the enemies.

Yes, but it takes a LONG time to get GOOD with any given weapon and ammo is FAR more scarce


No, in DX:IW there are very few ways you can complete certain tasks.
It was (mostly) either kill the guard(s) or try to avoid them.

Well if there are gaurds that you need to get past you can ONLY kill them or try to avoid them of course. That's just obvious. I mean what else could you do?
There are multiple ways to achieve every objective though. Saying otherwise is just odd as it is blatantly obvious that there are if you givethe game more than a cursory glance.


There are NO newspapers in DX:IW. There are only a few (different) books.

Okay, no papers, but various books, the news terminals and LOADS of PDAs with either personal notes or data files on them. There is plenty of info about

pKp
5th Dec 2007, 01:02
The answer? Split it down the middle. Have a similar set of skills to that of Deus Ex but give the player a large amount of starting points to spend. That way you can decide from the get go what your character can do. So you could either decide that their training was all about the guns and that you are an expert sniper as soon as you step out or that you are purely into covert activities and are therefore a master computer hacker. If neither of those grabs you, scatter the points around to indicate that your character dabbled in everything. This still leaves the opportunity for your character to progress as they make their way through the game but gives them a definite and more logical starting advantage over the masses.

YES ! Yes. That's one good idea. However, I kinda liked not being the "badass-invicible-mofo" for a change :D but this also depends on the resistance you face...


Of course I don't know this, but it is a reasonable assumption. It would be a very strange thing for them to completely ignore all that has gone before when writing the 3rd part for a series.

How do you know it's gonna be the third part ? :D

IceBallz
5th Dec 2007, 09:48
How about this. Forget everything about Deus Ex : IW and even make a sequal to it. To me being serious. The real fans got real pissed to the real hotted version of Deus Ex. What i want to see and what i think many other fans here want to see. Is to see the Deus Ex 3 to be more like Deus Ex and nothing of Deus Ex : IW.

StormFront
5th Dec 2007, 10:01
But that would be ridiculous. DX was in fact MASSIVELY flawed in many, many areas. IW was an attempt to improve that and, for all the wailing and nashing, was FAR MORE POPULAR than DX1. Do you really think that any company with a brain is going to step back 9 years and make something that no one will buy?

At the end of the day DX fans are going to have to acknowledge the fact that, technical problems aside, IW was in fact a good game and in many respects surpassed the original. The leap between DX and IW was quite large given that technology had not advanced much. Imagine how big the leap will be this time.

Anyone who thinks they are going to get DX but in a better engine needs their head seeing to...

JSDonald
5th Dec 2007, 15:38
But that would be ridiculous. DX was in fact MASSIVELY flawed in many, many areas. IW was an attempt to improve that and, for all the wailing and nashing, was FAR MORE POPULAR than DX1. Do you really think that any company with a brain is going to step back 9 years and make something that no one will buy?

At the end of the day DX fans are going to have to acknowledge the fact that, technical problems aside, IW was in fact a good game and in many respects surpassed the original. The leap between DX and IW was quite large given that technology had not advanced much. Imagine how big the leap will be this time.

Anyone who thinks they are going to get DX but in a better engine needs their head seeing to...

Just how popular was IW Storm? I know the original was a cult (and critical) hit but I don't really know how many copies it and IW sold (on both PC and console).

And you're right - I think there are some aspects that were improved upon in IW. But the devs took such a staggeringly huge step in the wrong direction with the crap engine, tiny levels, oversimplified ammo/ skills etc. that no-one noticed or cared.

Kneo24
6th Dec 2007, 00:11
Stormfront, obviously DX3 should be done in a way where it works on the original NES.

StormFront
6th Dec 2007, 01:22
Stormfront, obviously DX3 should be done in a way where it works on the original NES.

Absolutely! In fact, since you mention it, I've just just dug out my Atari 2600 and if it doesn't work for that there will be hell to play! Lack of support for perfectly legitimate technology just shows a total disregard for your customer base.

And as for teh PC version, what's all this "DVD" tom-foolery, eh? Those blighters don't fit in my 5 1/4" floppy bay.... Disrespect for your customers that is!

















:nut:

gamer0004
6th Dec 2007, 15:19
:scratch:



Yes, but it takes a LONG time to get GOOD with any given weapon and ammo is FAR more scarce

Okay, no papers, but various books, the news terminals and LOADS of PDAs with either personal notes or data files on them. There is plenty of info about

Have you actually even PLAYED Deus Ex?
You could take out the guard, avoid him OR look for an alternative route, which was often guarded by turrets and/or you had to use your lockpicks or multitools. Sometimes there was even another route: swimming. But for that you needed swimming skill.

And do you actually read my replies? Like I said, I have played the game quite often and no, it wasn't as good as DX.
Well if there are gaurds that you need to get past you can ONLY kill them or try to avoid them of course. That's just obvious. I mean what else could you do?
There are multiple ways to achieve every objective though. Saying otherwise is just odd as it is blatantly obvious that there are if you givethe game more than a cursory glance.
"and in many respects surpassed the original"
In what? Yes, the graphics were way better. Yes, the shooting was more fun.
And the game was easier (good for noobs)(?)
I liked it that you could only coose 6 augmentations, so you had to specialise. But because there weren't any skills that was no good.



About the shooting-thing: yes, only if you had invested many skillpoints in weapons you were accurate.
Or you could find yourself a good place, waited for the enemy and *headshot*. Investing your skillpoints in every skill while the only thing you do is shooting is stupid. If you invested all your skillpoints in pistol and rifle it wasn't that bad...
I agree JCDenton should've been more accurate in the first place (you áre a well-trained agent), but IW was a bit too accurate (but that was because there was no skillsystem).

StormFront
6th Dec 2007, 15:38
Have you actually even PLAYED Deus Ex?
You could take out the guard, avoid him OR look for an alternative route, which was often guarded by turrets and/or you had to use your lockpicks or multitools. Sometimes there was even another route: swimming. But for that you needed swimming skill.

And do you actually read my replies? Like I said, I have played the game quite often and no, it wasn't as good as DX.
Well if there are gaurds that you need to get past you can ONLY kill them or try to avoid them of course. That's just obvious. I mean what else could you do?
There are multiple ways to achieve every objective though. Saying otherwise is just odd as it is blatantly obvious that there are if you givethe game more than a cursory glance.
"and in many respects surpassed the original"
In what? Yes, the graphics were way better. Yes, the shooting was more fun.
And the game was easier (good for noobs)(?)
I liked it that you could only coose 6 augmentations, so you had to specialise. But because there weren't any skills that was no good.



About the shooting-thing: yes, only if you had invested many skillpoints in weapons you were accurate.
Or you could find yourself a good place, waited for the enemy and *headshot*. Investing your skillpoints in every skill while the only thing you do is shooting is stupid. If you invested all your skillpoints in pistol and rifle it wasn't that bad...
I agree JCDenton should've been more accurate in the first place (you áre a well-trained agent), but IW was a bit too accurate (but that was because there was no skillsystem).


I am playing DX for the 11th time as I write this, so yes, I;ve played it....

I think your rose-tinted's are a bit strong mate. Sure there were situations where you could choose one of two or three routes to get to an objective, but in fairness they were not that common. All IW did was cut out those "travelling" sections and have you deal with what happened once you got there. Once in a level there were plenty of ways to handle your objectives. The only reason the sections you are talking about are absent is becasue the maps were so tiny. These sections did not however constitute the only or indeed main examples of freedom of choice within the game.

IW will seem to have a lot less freedom of choice by default as the game is less than 1/3 the size of DX. Not saying thats a good thing but it is a fair point.

gamer0004
6th Dec 2007, 18:18
Finally we're getting somewhere :P
You are right, the absence of alternative routes was mainly because of the limited size of the maps. But that doesn't mean it was good this way.
I just hope they'll have bigger maps (although there were some really great maps in DX:IW: Heron's Loft appartments and Upper Seattle were quite nice) and they don't forget about the multiple ways to reach a goal.

StormFront
6th Dec 2007, 19:15
Finally we're getting somewhere :P
You are right, the absence of alternative routes was mainly because of the limited size of the maps. But that doesn't mean it was good this way.
I just hope they'll have bigger maps (although there were some really great maps in DX:IW: Heron's Loft appartments and Upper Seattle were quite nice) and they don't forget about the multiple ways to reach a goal.


Totally agree!

Who says we fight on forums? eh?:D

Demilitarized
6th Dec 2007, 19:21
It would be interesting to see more situations where a choice you made would have a greater affect on the factions in the game. what if the WTO had a zero tolerance policy. working against their agenda would cause them to disassociate themselves with you. It could be more realistic. UNATCO seemed pretty unforgiving. A rule stricken worldwide agency may be quick to vilify soemone who works against them. Especially when they are an adept augmented agent. JC would be a huge threat that needed to be addressed.

StormFront
8th Dec 2007, 13:57
It would be interesting to see more situations where a choice you made would have a greater affect on the factions in the game. what if the WTO had a zero tolerance policy. working against their agenda would cause them to disassociate themselves with you. It could be more realistic. UNATCO seemed pretty unforgiving. A rule stricken worldwide agency may be quick to vilify soemone who works against them. Especially when they are an adept augmented agent. JC would be a huge threat that needed to be addressed.


Obviously a lot is dependent on the background: what is going on in the scoio-political climate of the time. In IW for example you were free to outright disobey anyone you wanted but the problem was that factions like the WTO needed you a hell of a lot more than you needed them, so they were forced to overlook your transgretions as long as there was still hope that they could turn you to their cause.

If in the 3rd game your augs are still fairly rare and you are indeed a powerful figure (as I think you should be) then the same situations may occur. The interested parties will recognise you as a valuable asset and will try to control you, but you will still be in charge so they will have to bend to your will to some extent. (TBH, I think this is the side of IWs plot that lost most people. DX refused to acknowledge JCs power (ok he was weaker than Alex, but still pretty hard) and so he was simply a pawn in the game that was going in. He relied utterly on the input and orders of others and was unale to operate independently of the main factions. In IW however you avatars blatant superiority was made clear from the start and so the involveds were forced to cow-tow to you in the hope of winning you favour. It struck an odd balance in the dialogue that jarred with the originals. I personally prefered it and the freedom it offered, however)

Point is that I would love for us to be able to change the way the story unfolds more but I don't know how feasible that is. Until we have some details released as to who our protagonist is and when this game is set it will be hard to speculate....

gamer0004
10th Dec 2007, 16:35
Obviously a lot is dependent on the background: what is going on in the scoio-political climate of the time. In IW for example you were free to outright disobey anyone you wanted but the problem was that factions like the WTO needed you a hell of a lot more than you needed them, so they were forced to overlook your transgretions as long as there was still hope that they could turn you to their cause.

If in the 3rd game your augs are still fairly rare and you are indeed a powerful figure (as I think you should be) then the same situations may occur. The interested parties will recognise you as a valuable asset and will try to control you, but you will still be in charge so they will have to bend to your will to some extent. (TBH, I think this is the side of IWs plot that lost most people. DX refused to acknowledge JCs power (ok he was weaker than Alex, but still pretty hard) and so he was simply a pawn in the game that was going in. He relied utterly on the input and orders of others and was unale to operate independently of the main factions. In IW however you avatars blatant superiority was made clear from the start and so the involveds were forced to cow-tow to you in the hope of winning you favour. It struck an odd balance in the dialogue that jarred with the originals. I personally prefered it and the freedom it offered, however)

Point is that I would love for us to be able to change the way the story unfolds more but I don't know how feasible that is. Until we have some details released as to who our protagonist is and when this game is set it will be hard to speculate....

Yes, the WTO needed you (although, they say so. But they had better sent in some Commando's into UNATCO HQ), but normally there is a point where people say "We don't want to do business with you anymore", like when you have killed a dozen of their (well respected) men...

StormFront
10th Dec 2007, 16:50
Yes, the WTO needed you (although, they say so. But they had better sent in some Commando's into UNATCO HQ), but normally there is a point where people say "We don't want to do business with you anymore", like when you have killed a dozen of their (well respected) men...

I agree in theory, but you have to keep in mind the end game. All the powers knew full well that you were the key to JC and they would do anything and put up with anything to get their hands on him. That is why they tolerated you no matter what you did for so long.

A conceit I grant, but a logical one in the circumstance

JoeGreensKiller
11th Dec 2007, 23:08
What really let me down was Warren Spectors involvment in I.W. amongst a long list of disappointments, and I was serious when said I threw it in my woodstove
after 4 hours of play. Dirty Pool Warren :(

StormFront
12th Dec 2007, 10:17
What really let me down was Warren Spectors involvment in I.W. amongst a long list of disappointments, and I was serious when said I threw it in my woodstove
after 4 hours of play. Dirty Pool Warren :(

The game deserved more than that. Warrens only fault was greed. He is the reason the project ended up crippled as he ios the one who sold it to M$.

As I've said elswhere, he is overhyped anyway. 2-3 good games does not a god make

exmachinad
21st Dec 2007, 23:51
Just a stupid observation :D :


My main gripe was the fact that I never seemed to have any ammo so I didn't feel that I could go exploring.

Hmn. I played Invisible War a lot of times (since it is SO short) and never ran out of unified ammo.

StormFront
22nd Dec 2007, 00:09
Just a stupid observation :D :



Hmn. I played Invisible War a lot of times (since it is SO short) and never ran out of unified ammo.

I was wondering that myself but didn't comment. I simply cannot see HOW you would run out of ammo in IW...:confused:

Smoke Screen
22nd Dec 2007, 00:19
The game deserved more than that. Warrens
only fault was greed.

I guess u know him well.



As I've said elswhere, he is overhyped anyway. 2-3 good games does not a
god make

Agree,i think its hes fault to have a good reputation based on a couple
excellent games he directed,which is probably a couple hundred percent more
than most ppl involved in the buisness. However,if he makes a mistake or
a product failed to meet our expectations we nail him on the wall.
BTW: In all interviews and articles ive read with and about him,he never shows
ambitions to be a "god" or even just a smartass.

StormFront
22nd Dec 2007, 09:26
Agree,i think its hes fault to have a good reputation based on a couple
excellent games he directed,which is probably a couple hundred percent more
than most ppl involved in the buisness. However,if he makes a mistake or
a product failed to meet our expectations we nail him on the wall.
BTW: In all interviews and articles ive read with and about him,he never shows
ambitions to be a "god" or even just a smartass.

You agree but then take the piss outa me? Is this supposed to be sarcasm or is it just badly written, I honestly cannot tell?

Smoke Screen
22nd Dec 2007, 12:40
You agree but then take the piss outa me? Is this
supposed to be sarcasm or is it just badly written, I honestly cannot
tell?

Please dont lie to me. You know what was meant. But youre right,english is not
my native tongue. However,probably i got pissed a bit too by a guy from
yorkshire and his i know it all better attitude. Probably i forgot that its often just
hard-wired and not intentional bad behavior.
Well,probably if i came from scottland this would easily spiral out of control,but
im just a german who likes good games and i have to admit that your points
mostly are valid. However,this babbling about an overhyped gamedev just hit
me and i had to answer. :whistle: