PDA

View Full Version : DX:IW Preview



Tracer Tong
22nd Jan 2008, 09:45
http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox/deus-ex-invisible-war/499142p1.html

Why do games always sound better than they actually turn out to be?
All they said here made it into the game...

EIDOS, learn from their mistakes, please. Make a good game. :)

Unstoppable
22nd Jan 2008, 15:45
It's called money/marketing.

minus0ne
22nd Jan 2008, 20:54
And if the recent gamespot debacle is any indication, we're better off trusting gamer reviews over "professional" reviews. All these major sites have become little more than marketing tools. I'm sure they'll find a way to push products through gamer reviews too, though.

Tracer Tong
22nd Jan 2008, 21:04
And if the recent gamespot debacle is any indication, we're better off trusting gamer reviews over "professional" reviews. All these major sites have become little more than marketing tools. I'm sure they'll find a way to push products through gamer reviews too, though.

*COUGHEACOUGH*

Caradoc
22nd Jan 2008, 21:07
I haven't trusted those big gamesite reviews for a long time.. I'll read what other gamers like myself are saying on forums, follow metascore, read the non-professional reviews WRITEN BY OTHER GAMERS etc...

Professional game journalism as i've known it has gone down the drain. :(

SageSavage
22nd Jan 2008, 21:48
Yeah, I think that's true. Still shocking and quite sad.

jd10013
22nd Jan 2008, 22:08
that review is nothing compared to what the devs were promising, and even what the early concept work showed. then somewhere along the way to xbox development everything changed and went to crap. http://img1.gildia.pl/_n_/ggk/gry/deus_ex_antologia/skan1-640.jpg

Unstoppable
23rd Jan 2008, 04:19
For the 20th time Xbox had nothing to do with the short comings of the game. For a factual account read my posts. I've done about 100 hours or more of research on why the project failed. I know the facts.

It failed because their renderer was crap. Their engine was butchered. They hired some guy to write the renderer, instead he wrote an engine. Harvey Smith elected to keep the engine, or someone higher up did. After all Harvey was the project lead.

The engine halfway through the project was discovered to be limiting. They had no choice but to continue development.

imported_van_HellSing
23rd Jan 2008, 05:18
Ah, but what does the engine have to do with unified ammo, lack of code-punching etc? I'm not saying that those are the Xbox' fault, but there's more to IW's failure than just that troubled renderer.

Papy
23rd Jan 2008, 07:21
I know the facts.
You do? Then there's one thing I'd like to know... How many copies of Deus Ex were sold, and how many for Invisible War (worldwide, and including console of course)?

Anyway, my biggest complaints with IW have nothing to do with the engine so your explanation is obviously simplistic, if not completely wrong.

Unstoppable
23rd Jan 2008, 08:17
You do? Then there's one thing I'd like to know... How many copies of Deus Ex were sold, and how many for Invisible War (worldwide, and including console of course)?

Anyway, my biggest complaints with IW have nothing to do with the engine so your explanation is obviously simplistic, if not completely wrong.

I don't have an exact number since I don't have access to the resources required to get them. Also when it hit I had no idea it launched till about a year afterward. That puts me at a disadvantage.

Despite that though I have been digging through dirt for the sales figures. However when UT did hit Deus Ex was in the #8 spot so it did make top ten for a week or more.

http://www.helpmewithmygirlproblems.com/onearticle.x/8605

I'm thinking it sold over 600k but not more than 1.2 million worldwide.

As for Invisible War it sold ok but didn't do as good as Eidos wanted to. Really you knew I couldn't answer this question but there I answered it as best I could. :thumbsup:

If your biggest complaints have nothing to do with the engine then you already have your answer. Warren Spector became the Studio director. He flat out told Harvey Smith and I paraphrased "I want you to shock me." That perhaps was the sentence he should of never used.

Harvey Smith is a game designer, and in his last two projects (Blacksite: Area 51 and Deus Ex: Invisible War) he has failed at managing them. What he does best is design, not manage.

Some of his decisions did suck but he was the project lead. He is the one to blame. He is not associated with Deus Ex 3 in anyway shape or form thus far. Except that he was involved with the first two games.

I know this game will succeed because I believe the people at Eidos Montreal. They are upfront about how they're company is going to do their projects and I really like that.

As for the screenshots, I was just as shocked as you were how much the game changed from preview to final. I told myself, "what the heck, where did the graphics go?"

This all goes back to the engine etc. They could not get the renderer to work properly. (Said so by Smith himself) Honestly I don't like putting that much blame on Harvey but he was the project lead. Also the way he mouthed off about his own game leads me to believe he just isn't good at leading people.

One of the Gamespy interviews videos says his biggest problem was personnel. He admitted it. I'm looking for them to see if they're still online. He admitted it with Blacksite as well and that's easily googled.

jordan_a
23rd Jan 2008, 16:08
http://img1.gildia.pl/_n_/ggk/gry/deus_ex_antologia/skan1-640.jpgI remember that shot!! Do you have more of those with that interface?

Unstoppable
23rd Jan 2008, 16:34
I wouldn't be surprised if that interface was photoshopped.

jd10013
23rd Jan 2008, 21:01
I wouldn't be surprised if that interface was photoshopped.


no, it was from very early on. something from E3 i think. and despite all your research, co-developing for the xbox had a huge impact on the game, and not in a good way. If it had been developed only for the PC, it would have been a much better game.

And the Xbox IS the reason we got small levels. specter even said so in an interview. However, he implied that the pc version wouldn't have as many loads as the xbox version did.

jd10013
23rd Jan 2008, 21:11
http://www.crpg.ru/newspics/1929_dx2_021103_001.jpg

http://www.crpg.ru/newspics/1931_dx2_021103_003.jpg

http://www.crpg.ru/newspics/1932_dx2_021103_004.jpg

jordan_a
23rd Jan 2008, 21:54
Man there's nothing like a small and discreet interface.

jd10013
23rd Jan 2008, 22:06
there is a movie/demo type thing out there that I'm trying to find. it shows the player attacking that bot.

ok, I found a couple

http://files.filefront.com/de2+previewzip/;956163;/fileinfo.html

there are some more early ones here:
http://deusex2.filefront.com/developer/Ion_Storm;3527

AaronJ
24th Jan 2008, 01:35
Dammit, that looks so awesome! Why would they screw that up?!

Unstoppable
24th Jan 2008, 01:56
Ah I see if Spector confirmed it then I take it back. The Xbox did have significant impact. Deus Ex 3 PC first, port to 360 after please.

DXJohnny1981
24th Jan 2008, 02:14
With DX:IW I just think they were too ambitious with the game engine... Reading the gamespy preview where they were talking about how they took some engine and then totally striped it down and rebuilt it leads me to believe that they spent waaay too much time and effort on the graphics engine. There comes a time where you have to say "all right look the graphics are good enough, we need to shift our focus to gameplay and story development...". It would have been better if they took an "off the shelf" third party engine like Unreal Engine 2 and maybe tweaked it a little and then spent most of the development cycle fleshing out the gameplay and story. I didn't buy DX1 when it first came out so I'm not sure if it had state of the art graphics, animation, A.I., physics, etc. for it's time, regardless when I bought DX1 about two years latter the visuals were a little antiquated compared to other games on the market. Whether DX1 had state of the art visuals for it's time or not doesn't matter cause I think we can all agree that the gameplay and the interesting story and characters is what made us fall in love with that game. As for DX:IW it's funny reading that preview above where the Smith guy and Spector go on and on about stuff like real time lighting and realistic physics when they should've been more focused on gameplay and story development... Also I'm not buying that the Xbox is to blame for DX:IW's failures... Like someone else said watering down the biomod system and removing the skill and experience system had nothing to do with hardware or game engines... also the mostly uninteresting story in DX:IW wasn't the fault of hardware or game engines either... There were other games on the Xbox like KOTOR which had very deep RPG gameplay, large open areas and and an awesome story and characters... With DX3 they already have a game engine in place at this early stage of development so it looks like most of the development cycle will be spent on developing the gameplay, story and characters so that gives me hope...

DXJohnny1981
24th Jan 2008, 02:21
Ah I see if Spector confirmed it then I take it back. The Xbox did have significant impact. Deus Ex 3 PC first, port to 360 after please.

If DX3 goes to one console I rather it go to the PS3 but more likely it will be a multi-platform game on the PC, PS3 and 360.

Tracer Tong
24th Jan 2008, 06:57
[[ LOADS OF DX2 PICTURES ]]

Why??? DX2 could've been such a better game! I remember this interface with a premature level of something that was later in the game image.

I think that their initial plan for DX2 (again, not IW) was a good one, but somewhere along the way they messed up their creation.:scratch: :mad2:

jd10013
24th Jan 2008, 22:43
Ah I see if Spector confirmed it then I take it back. The Xbox did have significant impact. Deus Ex 3 PC first, port to 360 after please.


It might have been harvey, can't remember exactly. but when the co-development was announced, the first thing people wanted to know was how the lack of a HDD and limitled memory of the XBox would effect the game. We were assured by spector/smith not to worry, that it would only require the maps to be cut up into smaller pieces, but not necessarily for the PC. somehow, like with the hud, UI, inventory system, light meter, local damage ect, It got changed durring production.

jd10013
24th Jan 2008, 22:47
If DX3 goes to one console I rather it go to the PS3 but more likely it will be a multi-platform game on the PC, PS3 and 360.


now that all the consoles have HDD's, plenty of memory, and more processing power than all but the most top end computers; I'm not to worried about it. It's more a matter of them being willing to spend the time and money to co-develop, as opposed to making it for the platform then porting to PC. like resident evil.

Papy
24th Jan 2008, 23:36
now that all the consoles have HDD's, plenty of memory, and more processing power than all but the most top end computers;
If you call a $650 PC "top end", then I agree. Otherwise, I think you greatly overestimate the computing power of consoles.

jd10013
24th Jan 2008, 23:53
If you call a $650 PC "top end", then I agree. Otherwise, I think you greatly overestimate the computing power of consoles.

this is a post by chris klein, who was the lead programer for bioshock, over on the TTLG boards:


For anyone geeky enough to care, the reason the XBox360 version is as fast as a decked out PC is because

1) It comes with 3 cores (it's kind of like 6 cores really, if you count hardware thread support) out of the box

2) It has custom graphics hardware that kicks the pants off of anything available on the PC (and anything upcoming that I know of), with a custom written-to-the-metal version of DirectX and a custom memory architecture to support it. You can do lots of amazing things on it that you simply cannot do on a PC due to architectural restrictions.

http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109427&page=2

Zegano
25th Jan 2008, 01:10
I'm not exactly an expert on microprocessors, but I do know that DX3 is coming out at least 15 months from now. If computers double in power every 18 months (moores law I think its called) then comparing current gen consoles, which will still be in use 15 months from now, to current gen computers probably isn't the best idea.

But while 360s are more optimized, pcs have more raw power, so depending on how you see it xbox just pretends to be fast or they are both equal. However as I said computers are growing faster at an exponential rate so when dx3 is released they will probably outstrip them.

However I think that most of the above is pretty useless, firstly because I agree that consoles now have the power to handle large areas and excellent graphics, and secondly because I can't honestly say that I know how to build an xbox cpu :rasp:

I'm more concerned about the control scheme being dumbed down to allow for easy use on the console, because even if IW was being simplified anyway, I think that a lot of mistakes came from the xbox controls, like only six augs (9 or 10 would take too much time to access) or an annoying inventory. My recommendation for the augs would be to maybe have some passive only slots, although I still want as many active augs as is humanly possible to fit in.

DXJohnny1981
25th Jan 2008, 03:49
now that all the consoles have HDD's, plenty of memory, and more processing power than all but the most top end computers; I'm not to worried about it. It's more a matter of them being willing to spend the time and money to co-develop, as opposed to making it for the platform then porting to PC. like resident evil.

The 360 has a "core" model which I believe is now called the "arcade" model that doesn't have a HDD so with the 360 a HDD isn't standard. Also there are other reasons while I don't like the 360 hardware but I'm not going to get into that again, if you care look up my posts in the "consoles" thread.

DXJohnny1981
25th Jan 2008, 04:13
this is a post by chris klein, who was the lead programer for bioshock, over on the TTLG boards:


For anyone geeky enough to care, the reason the XBox360 version is as fast as a decked out PC is because

1) It comes with 3 cores (it's kind of like 6 cores really, if you count hardware thread support) out of the box

2) It has custom graphics hardware that kicks the pants off of anything available on the PC (and anything upcoming that I know of), with a custom written-to-the-metal version of DirectX and a custom memory architecture to support it. You can do lots of amazing things on it that you simply cannot do on a PC due to architectural restrictions.

http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109427&page=2

If this guy is trying to say that the 360 is as good or... Lol, better than a high end PC than he must be on M$'s viral marketing payroll. He can put all the spin he wants on technical specs but the proof is in the pudding... Bioshock is the best the 360 can do and it drastically pales in comparison to Crysis which is the best the PC can do right now so don't let that guy blow smoke up your rear... he's just trying to hype his game... The 360 isn't even the most powerful console, I've played games on the PS3 like Uncharted: Drake's fortune that look way better than any 360 game I've ever played including Bioshock.

mr_cyberpunk
25th Jan 2008, 06:50
I'll say this only once.. SHUT THE **** UP ABOUT IWAR AND PLAY JUNCTION POINT YOU CRY BABY MOFOS! lol Junction Point looks tasty, well just by going by the concept art anyway.

Angel/0A
25th Jan 2008, 06:59
That thread is from '06 anyway.

Tracer Tong
25th Jan 2008, 07:39
That thread is from '06 anyway.

Yeah, according to Moore's Law we should have better computers (and we do, native quad core anyone?) by mid-2008. XBox360 was good for its time, and now it won't be. I'm not a PS3 fan (not at ALL) but I do know it pwns the x360.

x360 is last gen. PCs are ALWAYS current-gen :P

gamer0004
25th Jan 2008, 07:47
Moore's Law isn't valid anymore...
That's why we have multi-core processors nowadays. If the Law was valid we would have 10 Ghz single-core CPU's.

Tracer Tong
25th Jan 2008, 09:52
It's measured in other things (such as number of cores now, or transistor count, or nanometers between each transistor).

Plus, Moore's law is financial rather than technological (as most people think). He talks about the price of things, even when they reach their maximal capability.

Papy
25th Jan 2008, 20:25
this is a post by chris klein
Yes, I know what Chris Kline said, but I also remember him saying he was not in charge of PC optimization, and, if you put things into context (TTLG is pretty much an elitist club and a lot of people are anti-consoles), you can wonder if he was not acting as a salesman rather than being honest. After all, a lot of the things both him and Levine said about the game happened to be false (some are even now qualifying them as plain lies), so I don't see why those "facts" should be considered with more respect.

The Xenon is optimized for streaming instructions. But because of its deep pipeline, as soon as you have some branches or cache misses, performances go significantly down. The problem is even worse than what it was with the P4. Basically, those processors are made for multimedia, not for AI, physics or general programming. The Cell will smoke a Core 2 Duo for Folding@home or Seti, but for games, which are more than just graphics, the C2D will be the winner.

As for graphics, the 360 has a 500MHz GPU with 48 unified shaders, a 128 bit bus at 700MHz. Because it's tightly integrated with the processor, it can achieve to be a bit more powerful than an X1900XT even though its specs are lower, but there's a limit to what integration and processor help can do, and it simply can't compare compare to a HD3870 or 8800GT.

There is also one big problem with the 360 : it doesn't have enough memory. A normal PC has now 2 Gigs or RAM, plus 512MB on the video card. The 360 has only a total of 512MB. There are a few tricks to compensate (compression, procedural synthesis...), but they all cost processor power.

Anyway, this talk is fun, but somewhat pointless. I don't have BioShock on an X-Box, so I can't be sure, but I read that the best resolution is 720p or 1080i. I hope you realize that a C2D with a 8800GT can easily play BioShock at a higher resolution than that. And you have to consider that BioShock was design and optimized for a 360.

An even better example is with Oblivion. A lot of people thought the framerate for the 360 was not that great. It was the same problem for people with an X1800. But now, an HD3870 or a 8800GT will play the game fine without any slowdown. Of course the slowdowns with the 360 are still there.

jd10013
26th Jan 2008, 00:16
keep a couple thing in mind here guys,

1. I prefer PC over console any day of the week
2. I admittedly said in my post that top end pc are better and faster than a consloe. My point is, the only games that the consloe will not be able to match are games like crysis. And there are quite a bit of pissed off crysis owners who have found out you need a 5k pc to play it decently on. the same is true for bioshock. tons of pc people who cant get the thing to run on thier machine.

again, that my whole point here. unless eidos decides to try and make DX3 the most cutting edge, graphicly advanced game ever............then co-development on one of the three consoles doen't have to compromise the PC version.

Laputin Man
26th Jan 2008, 04:25
I'll say this only once.. SHUT THE **** UP ABOUT IWAR AND PLAY JUNCTION POINT YOU CRY BABY MOFOS! lol Junction Point looks tasty, well just by going by the concept art anyway.



I thought Disney now owns that studio? I googled it and found no info... could you give me a link please Mr. CP?

Papy
26th Jan 2008, 08:44
I admittedly said in my post that top end pc are better and faster than a consloe.
And would you care to define what you mean with "top end PC"? Take the basic Dell core 2 duo at $470, add a $170 HD3850 (not bought from Dell, of course) and another Gig of RAM for $25, and for a total of $665 you have something more powerful than a 360 (those prices are from Dell and Newegg). Personally, I would qualify $665 as average, not as "top end".



unless eidos decides to try and make DX3 the most cutting edge, graphicly advanced game ever
They did it for IW, so there's a good chance they'll do the same for DX3. After all, marketing is mainly done with pretty screenshots and there is very few game which don't try to have cutting edge graphics (except for the Wii).

jd10013
26th Jan 2008, 13:29
we are talking in the context of games, right? and no, I do not think a $650 computer will play all the games, and at the same level of quality (graphics, framerates ect) as a current gen console will. Bioshock is the best example of that. You might get BS to run on a $600 computer, but it aint going to be pretty. On the 360, it will look, sound, and run great.

And I'm talking about prebuilt systems. Start throwing in custom built systems its no longer a fair comparison as you can't build your own console to save 50%

Papy
26th Jan 2008, 22:53
First, I didn't chose a custom built system, I took a Dell as a basis because I want things to be simple. I just took a video card upgrade and another Gig of ram from another place instead of buying from Dell, because for these kind of things Dell are extremely overpriced (a 1 Gig upgrade cost $25 from NewEgg, but $100 from Dell). And I don't see why it is not "fair" anyway. What else... it wouldn't be fair to compare a computer with more than 512 MB because a 360 has only 512 MB?

Second, the $665 I gave is a C2D 4500 with an HD3850 and 2 Gigs or RAM. It is able to play BioShock at max settings and 1680x1050 without any problem, something a 360 can't.

jd10013
27th Jan 2008, 00:59
If you think a $665 computer is going to run Bioshock on max setting then your crazy. And, you should go over to the 2k forums and explain to the hundreds of people there who can't play the game that they're mistaken.

650 at dell isn't buying much, and certainly not enough to play BS at max settings. you may get it to run, but not at max. leave off the monitor and everything else, you might build a suitable system there for about $900. But I doubt even that is going to play BS at max settings. You want to turn AA, bloom and everything else up, and get 60+FPS, your going to have to invest at least 350 in a fairly top end GPU. And that is only going to run the game as well as the 360. I've bought my last 3 computers (including this one) from dell. I know what you get for what you pay. want a decent gaming computer, your going to have to go XPS. and you arn't getting one of them for $650

no offense, but I'm going to have to take the lead programmer of Bioshock's word over your's on this one.

VodunLoas
27th Jan 2008, 06:08
I believe Papy, just a graphic card and ram upgrade can do a hell of a lot. Got to have a powerful enough psu to handle a good graphic card too.

About Crysis, they scammed everybody with directx10. When you set it to directx9, you actually get crappy settings for dx9 to make it look like dx9 is outdated, to make it look like you need to upgrade to Vista. But, in fact dx9 has the ability to look great on Crysis. There is a fix for it online I believe. I haven't tested this myself, because I don't have Crysis, but I have seen MANY announcements about this on sites.

Papy
27th Jan 2008, 08:34
If you think a $665 computer is going to run Bioshock on max setting then your crazy.
No, I'm a computer consultant. And yes, a $665 computer can run BioShock at max settings (if you know what you are buying, of course).

Edit : Anyway, you can find lots of benchmarks, like this one overclockersclub (http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/visiontek_hd3850/8.htm), and then check prices on NewEgg. It's true the processor is a bit better (2.4GHz instead of 2.2GHz, higher bus speed and more cache) than the $665 computer I used as an example, but the difference between the overclocked videocard and the regular one makes me thinks the bottleneck was the card, so a bigger processor won't change much.

gamer0004
27th Jan 2008, 10:04
I think Papy is right.
First of all PC's are a lot cheaper than they used to be. Three years ago I bought a PC for 1500 € including mouse, keyboard and monitor. Back than it was almost best you could get.
If you buy a PC now that can do the same thing (not excactely the same thing, but new games with all settings on max in high res) you'll only have to pay between 700-1000 euro's, depending on the shop en how well the system is balanced.
BTW: although 1 euro is like 1,5 dollar I believe, dollars and euro's are excactely the same amount of money when it comes to buying things: I believe a full-priced game in the US is 50 $, it's 50 € here. That's why quite a lot of Europians buy there games online in America; because the difference in price is so big it's worth the shipment costs.

DXJohnny1981
27th Jan 2008, 10:16
no offense, but I'm going to have to take the lead programmer of Bioshock's word over your's on this one.

It's not like developer statements are gospel... I'm sure M$ paid a hefty fee to get BS as an exclusive 360 game on consoles and it's not hard to believe that part of that deal would include the devs hyping up the 360 version... Also like papy said if you know how to find good deals on PC parts I'm sure you could build a PC with $650 that can run Bioshock at high settings. It's not like BS is a system killer like Crysis, I've played BS on the 360 and it's not even the best looking console game I've seen...

humbug
27th Jan 2008, 12:40
I have a mid end PC and it runs Bioshock on max settings with no Probs. Pappy is right if you know where to spend your PC budget, you can't go wrong.

Personally I don't think you can really trust developers when they are talking about their lastest game, as at the end of the day they are trying to sell their product.

Draco1979
3rd Feb 2008, 00:53
PC for the price of a PC

under a grand
3.0 core 2 duo e6850
2 gigs of mem
7950 Geforce nvida
Gigabyte board
case with PSU
120 gig seagate hdd
was lil over 900

Tracer Tong
3rd Feb 2008, 09:01
PC for the price of a PC

under a grand
3.0 core 2 duo e6850
2 gigs of mem
7950 Geforce nvida
Gigabyte board
case with PSU
120 gig seagate hdd
was lil over 900

Too old, in half a year no game will run on your pc (it'll be 'low-end')

gamer0004
3rd Feb 2008, 10:23
LOL that's not true. After a year you'll have to play games at medium to high, depending on the game, and after 2-3 years you can still play almost every new game in a decent resolution at low.
My pc is 3 years old and it runs Crysis perfectely with some settings on low and some on medium.

Draco1979
3rd Feb 2008, 19:12
Too old, in half a year no game will run on your pc (it'll be 'low-end')


I beg to differ and if all I need to do is upgrade my video card I will and plus the pc I built two years ago with a mid range card at the time still can play games today and it played IW just fine.......

rhalibus
4th Feb 2008, 00:20
And if the recent gamespot debacle is any indication, we're better off trusting gamer reviews over "professional" reviews. All these major sites have become little more than marketing tools. I'm sure they'll find a way to push products through gamer reviews too, though.

I agree. Gerstmann-gate really affected me more than I thought it would--I had always considered the whole Gamespot crew a bunch of people I'd hang around with if I knew them personally, so one of them getting fired for not toeing the line really brought home the feeling that the exec's don't really care about them and what they all brought to the gamer community...:(

Boiny Bunny
7th Feb 2008, 09:55
Nope, this game needs to be PC exclusive if it's to be anywhere near the calibre of the first game. Once they've achieved 2m+ sales, THEN they can try porting it or something.

Tyrant Worm
8th Feb 2008, 17:29
That article makes Invisible War sound sweet! Too bad it didn't pan out.:(

Necros
11th May 2008, 16:11
I loved the early shots of NG's hologram, it looked so cool. :cool: Oh, anyway, I think DX:IW was still a good game, a lot better than most average FPSs with brainless stories, though of course not nearly as great as the first Deus Ex. :)

B0b_P@ge
12th May 2008, 00:12
Jeezz, looking at this reminds me of 'the good old days' when I was so excited to play the next DX and had confidence in video game development companies.... man was I angrily disappointed. Honestly, I lost all faith in video game companies afterwards... Seeing those images just brings back all the sadness.:(

Fen
12th May 2008, 02:55
"Looking back, Spector is aghast at the interface that was devised for the original Deus Ex. "I wanted an interface that looked organic ... like it was burned into the guy's eye. I failed completely to convey that to the team." The result was several layers of menus, and numerous sub-interfaces that served, in Spector's estimation, to disconnect players from the flow of the action. Those problems have been solved, because in Invisible War, "These guys nailed it." The new UI resurrects the "eye" concept, and combines the resultant round shapes with the idea of rotation. Imagine a transparent series of rings, one within the other, that rotate to different "notches" at your command. Each notch is another menu item, and selecting one item or another will cause different pieces of information to swivel into view on the inner rings. It's hard to describe, so you'll just have to take my word that it looks awfully slick and clever. More importantly, it will eliminate the need for non-standard interfaces (remember the ATMs from the first game?) that interrupt the flow of gameplay."

This paragraph saddend me. I total lack of understanding about what made deus ex 1 great.

DXeXodus
12th May 2008, 06:24
That is a very disappointing paragraph indeed. It makes me sad that they thought this of their original game. DX1 had a winning formula and they hacked it. sigh. (rests head on desk while gazing off into the distance)

Tracer Tong
12th May 2008, 16:00
"Looking back, Spector is aghast at the interface that was devised for the original Deus Ex. "I wanted an interface that looked organic ... like it was burned into the guy's eye. I failed completely to convey that to the team." The result was several layers of menus, and numerous sub-interfaces that served, in Spector's estimation, to disconnect players from the flow of the action. Those problems have been solved, because in Invisible War, "These guys nailed it." The new UI resurrects the "eye" concept, and combines the resultant round shapes with the idea of rotation. Imagine a transparent series of rings, one within the other, that rotate to different "notches" at your command. Each notch is another menu item, and selecting one item or another will cause different pieces of information to swivel into view on the inner rings. It's hard to describe, so you'll just have to take my word that it looks awfully slick and clever. More importantly, it will eliminate the need for non-standard interfaces (remember the ATMs from the first game?) that interrupt the flow of gameplay."


Oh god, Warren's an idiot. He failed to understand what his team was creating back in DX1...

I think that all of this forum would completely agree with the fact that the intuitive interface UI of DX1 and the ATMs and terminals NEVER ruined the flow of the game.

rhalibus
12th May 2008, 20:17
Oh god, Warren's an idiot. He failed to understand what his team was creating back in DX1...


Well, he did play a major role in developing the concept of "multiple solutions", which I believe is the true heart of Deus Ex...

The biggest problem with the DX2 circular "iris" interface was that it didn't take into account that the player absolutely needs an unblocked peripheral vision to navigate through a game.

The decision to stay with an interface style whose shortcomings should have been weeded out in QA testing showcases what could happen if you choose developer wishes over effective gameplay.

At least you could turn it off...:)

Igoe
12th May 2008, 20:42
Well, the organic interface thing had semi-potential. I definitely see what they were trying to do. Unfortunately, great on paper- bad in game. Gimmicky menus actually detract more from the game than do straight forward menus.

The multiple windows in DX worked because it was utilitarian, and straight to the punch. You did what you had to do without watching stuff slide around and shift from one side of the screen to the other. It maximized the amount of data you could sift though, and centered it all in one area.

DXIW's menu was a neat idea, but you get tired of watching rotating rings when all you want to do is add a silencer to a pistol. It ALSO meant options had to be simplified and dumbed down, because it had to fit in a tiny little area. It also decreased the hotbar items and aug slots.

I liked the direction the initial DX2 shots had. With the blueish hexagonal LED type look. I believe this could be the organic hybrid they should use as a base for the DX3 HUD. It should be like a hologromatic TV inside one's eye. You could start with an initial 5-slot hotbar with linked hexagons, and over the course of the game you could "upgrade" to more. You Link with a machine, and another hotbar slot "lights up" Provides a good incentive to explore, and rewards careful players.

You could also have augs light up this way. Keep the initial eye-light hexagon, and other hexagons will "blink" on when activated, with an accompanying buzzing sound to let you know they are active. Very unobtrusive when not being used, so as to maximize screen real estate.

And taking it ONE more step further, add in EMP and bioelectic effects. When hit by an EMP, you hud will static and fade and blink, being noticably affected by the blast. Effect wont last long, but it would add to the organic element of the interface. Can be completely removed with an EMP defense type aug.

The hud could also fade and dim slightly when bioelectric reserves run low. Nothing TOO severe, but it would be a good reminder its time to top up, without the annoying jingle that nintendo games are so famous for.

Also getting drunk could affect the hud. You know, to be funny.

Larington
12th May 2008, 20:59
My understanding with regards to the curious change of interface between DX1 and DXIW is that after the release of the original, he had a lot of his peers telling him how they'd do this that or the other differently, that included the interface. I suppose that means that the problem is that he listened to them.

Makes me wonder if, when the DX:IW team started work, they should've spent some time analysing what people liked about all the aspects of the original before starting work on the sequel...

Voltaire
13th May 2008, 15:45
My understanding with regards to the curious change of interface between DX1 and DXIW is that after the release of the original, he had a lot of his peers telling him how they'd do this that or the other differently, that included the interface. I suppose that means that the problem is that he listened to them.

Makes me wonder if, when the DX:IW team started work, they should've spent some time analysing what people liked about all the aspects of the original before starting work on the sequel...

A broad market research will help them, but a sign of a weak design team is that they cave-in to the demands of superfans.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't take our views into account (otherwise why would I be writing here :rolleyes:), but I think they should keep their eyes on the prize and trust their own judgements.

Ghostdog
13th May 2008, 16:54
There comes a time where you have to say "all right look the graphics are good enough, we need to shift our focus to gameplay and story development...". No, I think it should be the other way around. You need to have a pretty good idea of story and what kind of gameplay you want - then adapt the engine and graphics to that.


"These guys nailed it." The new UI resurrects the "eye" concept, and combines the resultant round shapes with the idea of rotation. Imagine a transparent series of rings, one within the other, that rotate to different "notches" at your command. Each notch is another menu item, and selecting one item or another will cause different pieces of information to swivel into view on the inner rings. It's hard to describe, so you'll just have to take my word that it looks awfully slick and clever. To me at least, that doesn´t sound very much like what we got. That sounds like something that could have been cool. I think they just changed it during development due to some constraints.

free2game
21st Nov 2008, 03:22
With DX:IW I just think they were too ambitious with the game engine... Reading the gamespy preview where they were talking about how they took some engine and then totally striped it down and rebuilt it leads me to believe that they spent waaay too much time and effort on the graphics engine. There comes a time where you have to say "all right look the graphics are good enough, we need to shift our focus to gameplay and story development...". It would have been better if they took an "off the shelf" third party engine like Unreal Engine 2 and maybe tweaked it a little and then spent most of the development cycle fleshing out the gameplay and story. I didn't buy DX1 when it first came out so I'm not sure if it had state of the art graphics, animation, A.I., physics, etc. for it's time, regardless when I bought DX1 about two years latter the visuals were a little antiquated compared to other games on the market. Whether DX1 had state of the art visuals for it's time or not doesn't matter cause I think we can all agree that the gameplay and the interesting story and characters is what made us fall in love with that game. As for DX:IW it's funny reading that preview above where the Smith guy and Spector go on and on about stuff like real time lighting and realistic physics when they should've been more focused on gameplay and story development... Also I'm not buying that the Xbox is to blame for DX:IW's failures... Like someone else said watering down the biomod system and removing the skill and experience system had nothing to do with hardware or game engines... also the mostly uninteresting story in DX:IW wasn't the fault of hardware or game engines either... There were other games on the Xbox like KOTOR which had very deep RPG gameplay, large open areas and and an awesome story and characters... With DX3 they already have a game engine in place at this early stage of development so it looks like most of the development cycle will be spent on developing the gameplay, story and characters so that gives me hope...
Not the technology itself, but the audience they were playing to. The Halo audience. As per KOTOR, compared to Bioware's previous games, it was short and dumbed down.

Jerion
21st Nov 2008, 03:48
Dude. Necropost much?