PDA

View Full Version : DX Unanswered Questions/Continuity



Demiurge
14th Jun 2008, 21:10
Hi All, I've been hanging around these forums for a while now but only now have I actually bothered to make an account. One of the things that I think is essential for the game (assuming that it is a prequel) is to lead directly into the events seen in the First game, questions such as: How DID Simons' face get all marked up with bioelectrics and Why did Jordan Shea quit UNATCO, Why was JC expunged from his tube two years early to be released in 2052 and possibly most importantly What made Paul see sense and switch sides?Should be answered. The best way as I see it to present the answers is to be Paul, as I doubt the protagonist would be a mech, there was no real mention of any other mechs in DX and Paul would seem a natural choice for a prequel, about damn time he got his own game too. The other question is this, If we did indeed play as Paul would people mind not necessarily having a World-moving game ending, but instead knowing that they had set the storyline up for the original. Maybe a 'soft' ending would be appropriate here, such as Paul releasing JC two years early or just telling Tong his plans for the future, this would leave a smile on fans' faces and would not require a monumental shift in the past storyline we never heard of.

What are your opinions?

pHdeus
14th Jun 2008, 22:24
Whether a prequel or what I have termed a "requel", the idea of playing as Paul is an interesting one. I have discussed this idea with others from time to time.

Perhaps I should explain "requel". The idea was basically the JC wakes up at the beginning of the game to discover that the events in the Deus Ex IW were part of his dream. That gives the opportunity to create a new sequel to the first Deus Ex without the need to account for the events in Deus Ex IW.

There is one point that I would like to bring up. That after role playing as JC in the first game, I was a little disappointed to see him as a construct of the game in Deus Ex IW. My preference is playing as JC, with playing as Paul being my second choice.

Tsumaru
15th Jun 2008, 01:58
I remember in primary school years ago a newspaper was running a competition. For 9 weeks, they had a well-known author write another chapter in a story. So one author started it off, the next week another author continued it. For the final 10th chapter, kids all around the country submitted entries through their school to finish off the story. At the time I fancied myself as a fairly good writer and wanted to be an author, so I thought I pulled together a nice creative ending.
I was so angry when I discovered the winner ended it with "He woke up, and realised it was all just a dream." I ranted and raved for a week straight about the injustices of it all.

Anyway, to return to the main point, I think the concept of "ignoring IW" is completely bs. And to do it through an attempt to make the ignorance valid within the storyline by it "being a dream" is just rubbish. It sounds like something a 10 year old kid would come up with.

I really don't understand why everyone here is so dead-set on eliminating all traces of Invisible War, and/or having Paul as a playing character in a prequel. I've been through this in other topics and have yet to receive a valid response so far. In regards to pretending IW didn't happen - WHY!?! So you didn't like universal ammo and didn't like the fact it was a console port and didn't like X or Y or Z. Who gives a damn. To pretend the entire storyline didn't occur because you didn't like playing the game is just absurd. Have the DX:IW plot, come up with a reconcilable ending and continuable storyline, and then in the *SEQUEL* fix all the problems in terms of gameplay etc.

As for Paul, I will just link you to this thread:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=77220

And as for playing as JC Denton and the idea of "ignoring IW", I refer you to this thread:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=77336

serene_chaos
15th Jun 2008, 04:06
In my opinion, it's something of a writers' taboo to use the "it was all a dream" device.
I also agree with Tsumaru in that to ignoor IW is stupid. You can't just delete a storyline because you didnt like it. what's published is done, and you have to go from there.

Demiurge
15th Jun 2008, 11:55
Those are good points against playing as Paul, but it still seems that he would be a good choice due to the wealth of history behind the character, he has a charachter in DX but I assume he changed from an complete killer, why else would manderley rank him as the 'Best Agent' in UNATCO, there must have been a reputation before, that would make his 'going soft' all the more surprising in DX. However no one has responded to the Idea of a 'soft ending', maybe one that doesn't fundamentally change the world but has great significance to the plot of DX. Is anyone against such an ending?

Tsumaru
15th Jun 2008, 14:14
It would seem fundamentally against the typical nature of Deus Ex to have something relatively insignificant as the ending. I'm not totally adverse to it though, because obviously there's only so many "world altering" options that they can work with - and a whole bunch of them have already been used up. But I don't think you can have a Deus Ex game without a very intricate tapestry of hidden motives and world powers. The end result of a storyline with that is usually that the ending of the game is world altering. This is one of the problems I have with Paul in a prequel (or any prequel for that matter). Deus Ex will be degraded to a mere shoot-em-up. If the developers could seriously get a plot that was consistent both in terms of its nature but also continuity with the other games in the series, then I would be fine if it was a prequel with a 'softer' ending. But I just can't see it working. I know nobody here expects, or even really truly wants, DX3 to be better than the original - but the level of disappointment I would feel if the game ended up without any subtlety in the story and no dramatic ending... well, I can't put it into words.


Of course its worth noting at this point that the developers will already have a storyline. So it's not even about what we would like anymore - it's too late for them to change, if they even cared what we had to say. Mostly I just sit here debating as a means of procrastinating for my exams, and to try and rectify this misguided view people have that a prequel or playing as Paul would be fun. The reality is that none of us can do a damned thing about any of it, and we'll just see what they've come up with in a few years time.

Demiurge
15th Jun 2008, 21:45
Hmm I see your point but at the same time I think you are seeing this as throwing up unnecessary problems, Paul doesn't have to turn the game into a OMG! 1337 GR@PH1C$!!!! K1LLUB3RPWN@GE!!!! Crapppy shoot-em-up because there is so much we don't know about him because as we all know he knows how to keep secrets, even from his brother. The possibility that he was a different person when he joined allows the player to make the choice of how to act, as a brutal sonofa***** or as the cautious, compassionate man we have come to know. I would think that it would allow for a fantastic game and storyline (Betraying UNATCO, Finding out about MJ-12, his animosity with the mechs, why Jock reckons Paul is one of the bravest men he knows, plus the assassination attempt in Hong Kong) the only problem I see is the lack of a seriously earth-shattering ending but perhaps that can be avioded with a technique I normally don't favour but which might be of use here (the time-skipping technique e.g. 11 years later...). This leaves lots of room for the "very intricate tapestry of hidden motives and world powers" you spoke of but would not let us do much about the pre-existing ones in DX. however, what about the Idea that Page industries had rivals possibly affiliated with the NSF and Paul and UNATCO were actually instrumental in destroying them and thus for PI nd VL's rise to power, causing the problems of the first game, this is earth-shattering but not in a good way and would explain that paul might be trying to clear up his own mess by joining the NSF. What do you think of this idea, the idea of a catastrophe-ending that flows nicely into the beginning of DX?

Demiurge
15th Jun 2008, 21:59
And as for my reasons for believing Paul is the Protgonist, well first of all he is my favourite character, and I will blow up Eidos montreal if they include him but don't use Jay Franke to voice him. I am told my interest with the game borders on obsession, I reckon I know 99.99999% of everything about the game, but as I have found out may times is that the game always has a fresh surprise for you on every playthrough (at least if you use a different style each time). Anyways enough beating about the bush, here is why I think it will be a prequel involving Paul.

DX3 cannot be a sequel to IW because:

HElios ending: World peace/ utopia nuff said.
Illuminati ending: Illuminati dominance/ Dentons dead
Templar ending: ...NO.
Omar ending: Don't be stupid

All endings are too all-encompassing, I feel that the ending to the game must be a
'softer' one, think of the thief series (not DS) the ending was generally
averting a major disaster before returing to a thankless city full of mysteries
and people who wanted to kill Garrett, and the keepers remaining stubbornly cryptic.

DX3 must therefore be before IW timewise. It is illogical to assume that it is after JC Triggers the collapse because there would be no protagonists to choose from: JC is a comatose god and Paul is a nano-popsicle. Alex is being trained which leaves us with little to choose from. Nick Pausback and Wade Walker spring to mind as viable candidates although I had always assumed them to have died in the Area 51 explosion although if Alex
managed to survive I see no reason why they shouldn't.
This leaves us with the option of
playing unknown characters in a post-collapse world with little going on, although they might become templars/omar/illuminati it is unlikely that this transpired.

This leaves us with the option of a prequel/Part-prequel-part-alongside DX events (Hybrid Prequel) and it is very likely to be a prequel given the wealth of clues in the trailer for a tension between humans and the new people. This leaves us with the option of being either nano aug or mech. It is very VERY unlikely that eidos will cast the protagonist as a mech because it would give the series a somehow disjointed feel and the whole point of being a nano-aug was that you were something different, special, new.
Casting the main character as a mech would take away this feeling
and leave you feeling second-rate like the terminator to T-1000.
This leaves us with only two choices: Paul or Simons. Playing Simons would be interesting but ultimately doomed to failure because he generally dies (I usually kill him in A-51, it feels like a better place for a showdown) and thus his purpose is destroyed, for he cannot alter the events of two games by killing JC, not possible, and given the nature of his character it is unlikely you will play as him (you could order MiBs to hunt down people for you) and use all of FEMA's resources. DX left so many unanswered questions that could be reasonably answered by casting Paul as the Protagonist, with little interference for the two consecutive games assuming the ending is relatively 'Thief-like' (averting a major catastrophe that is relatively unknown to most people, it would also give the player a chance to explore the darker side of Paul's Personality)
("Paul said not to take any chances")
Paul's personality and history are almost completely unknown except for a few small clues we recieve and it is unfair to assume you know everything about a character before his history has even been written.

My thoughts, I have been waiting for a prequel before the sequel was announced (I saw the endings of DX as mutually exclusive and didn't assume there would be one).

Tsumaru
16th Jun 2008, 00:42
I think people fail to miss the one main point. Let me lay it out for you.


storyline (Betraying UNATCO, Finding out about MJ-12, his animosity with the mechs, why Jock reckons Paul is one of the bravest men he knows, plus the assassination attempt in Hong Kong)
So we know where the storyline is going to follow. That sounds exciting. Playing Paul will be like playing JC just with a few different missions. "Yay, UNATCO ftw. Oh noes, this doesn't seem right. WHAT MJ12?!?!? BAD. BAD. BAD." Same side-characters, same enemies, same just-about-everything. Oh, sure, there will be new stuff, I don't doubt that. But at the same time...


causing the problems of the first game, this is earth-shattering
Also, you have no choice if the ending has to result in the beginnings of the first game. Recall that almost everyone here has complained that Deus Ex was good with its choice at the end, but bad with its choice up to that point. Especially in Invisible War how you could keep swapping sides. Now you want to go play Paul where you get *no* choice at the end, *minimal* choice through the storyline (to kill or not to kill - a few minor characters?) and overall *very little* choice beyond the general playing style?

I can't see myself enjoying a game where I already know the characters, know the enemies, know the basic storyline (even if its just the overt stuff, with some new hidden secrets), know to some degree the ending, and have no real true capacity to change what happens. It will end up just being a regular FPS with some RPG elements. How will DX3 be able to distinguish itself without that element of choice, that ability to change the world?



As for the other stuff. I tend to agree that *I* cannot see a way to reconcile the IW endings; but that doesn't mean it cannot be done. Who honestly could have predicted the setting for IW based only on the endings in DX1 that we had?

Chemix
16th Jun 2008, 02:25
Invisible War wasn't just bad because of it's gameplay, it's plot was no where near the stature of the original as well. IW introduced you to a world that was explained within a few hours, no need to think about anything, and then at the end we get several options, regardless of what we've done before, and none of them look like the right choice, in Deus Ex, they all seemed like the right choice, but involved some element of trust. You had to trust Helios, or the Illuminati, or for chaos to resolve to something better, but there was always a positive light to it all, even if there were negatives. In IW, you have an almost hive mind concept within Helios, where everyone obeys a logical computer god thing through nanites, or you can join the Illuminati who have been pitting people against each other for centuries and will continue to do so, all for selfish gain, or you can join the "Templars" and become a Nazi, or you can just let the world nuke itself leaving a race of hive mind, borg like things behind. I couldn't agree with anything at the end of Deus Ex IW, but I could at least sort of like the possibilities of the original.

Tsumaru
16th Jun 2008, 04:46
I agree with you. The DX:IW endings all seemed to be bad choices - but at the same time, that can be good. It means you don't have an 'obvious good' which can introduce a greater level of philosophy. I don't think anybody seriously would have chosen the Templar ending, but all the rest of them were equally viable choices in my mind. I actually enjoyed grappling philosophically with the Denton's plan and considering whether that would be a good idea in a real society if we had the technology for it. This level of depth perhaps won't be appreciated by all people (I, for one, am studying philosophy at uni so I tend to overanalyse things) but I think it's better than having options which are unequal. At least this way it demands a level of thought for the decision-making process. As such, it might not necessarily be a bad thing to have an IW style ending. Although they were all perhaps a bit *too* negative. You do need appeal for all of them.

I also agree that the IW storyline on the whole wasn't as good. But I did like the introduction of the Omar, and the Templar 'racists/Nazis' had some potential as an enemy with depth and motives beyond taking over the world. But it definitely was lacking something, and the environment seemed a long stride from DX1, considering they also went through a period of a Dark Age in between. However, I know a lot of people ***** and moan about playing as Alex because everyone wants JC. DX1 clearly had Alex D set up as a sequel character from the start though, and I was definitely fine with playing as somebody else interacting with new people. A lot of the other elements of the story were missing something though, I can agree.

DLGenesis
16th Jun 2008, 07:10
i had the thought of the possibility that it could be based on events after deus ex but before deus ex:iw

Chemix
16th Jun 2008, 12:32
I agree with you. The DX:IW endings all seemed to be bad choices - but at the same time, that can be good. It means you don't have an 'obvious good' which can introduce a greater level of philosophy. I don't think anybody seriously would have chosen the Templar ending, but all the rest of them were equally viable choices in my mind. I actually enjoyed grappling philosophically with the Denton's plan and considering whether that would be a good idea in a real society if we had the technology for it. This level of depth perhaps won't be appreciated by all people (I, for one, am studying philosophy at uni so I tend to overanalyse things) but I think it's better than having options which are unequal. At least this way it demands a level of thought for the decision-making process. As such, it might not necessarily be a bad thing to have an IW style ending. Although they were all perhaps a bit *too* negative. You do need appeal for all of them.

I also agree that the IW storyline on the whole wasn't as good. But I did like the introduction of the Omar, and the Templar 'racists/Nazis' had some potential as an enemy with depth and motives beyond taking over the world. But it definitely was lacking something, and the environment seemed a long stride from DX1, considering they also went through a period of a Dark Age in between. However, I know a lot of people ***** and moan about playing as Alex because everyone wants JC. DX1 clearly had Alex D set up as a sequel character from the start though, and I was definitely fine with playing as somebody else interacting with new people. A lot of the other elements of the story were missing something though, I can agree.

Choosing the lesser of vastly evil options makes it feel, at least to me, like no matter what you do, you're doing the wrong thing, and all of them have a world wide scope, so it doesn't make much difference. It's like selling out humanity to one group or the next, there should be another option.

The Templars, while interesting in some ways, really just pissed me off. They were fear mongers buying into their own propaganda which seemed to have no other point. An intelligent group vying for world dominance shouldn't have to bypass morality by labeling people as non human. Also it screwed up the lore set up around the Templars in the first game, where they were the forerunners of the Illuminati, and weren't all bad, just ruthless a lot of the time.

The real Templars of real life, created a massive banking system throughout Europe to hold money for crusaders in the Middle East, and when some didn't come home, the Templars took their money/ land/ serfs/ what have you, and loaned it out to those who needed money now, but didn't have it. Thus they set up a widespread system of debt and repayment, through that, manipulation of major governments. They were mostly wiped out though when they were betrayed by a 14th century Pope that was contacted by Phillip II of France over his staggering debt to the Templars. Their leaders were burned at the stake for heresy and their followers were forced to repent for crimes of similar nature that they never committed. All on Friday the 13th. Their higher motives are unknown to this day, though they probably pushed for the crusades to occur, and took part in the slaughter of all non Christian inhabitants of several cities, including Jerusalem.

Reality and things based in it, tend to be much more horrifying than fiction, and also, much more interesting.

Tsumaru
16th Jun 2008, 13:12
I agree with you for the IW endings and them all feeling like you've done the wrong thing, and also agree about how the Templars sucked.

BUT. I think it's worth noting that I don't think the Templars in IW were actually descendants of the original Templars and those mentioned in DX1. I believe they just named themselves after them on their own. Which means there's no real contradiction or continuity error there. Also, I think you might be looking at them backwards. It sounds to me like you think first they wanted dominance, and then they labelled people unhuman and became crazy. I think the opposite is true. First and foremost they were people with a strict moralistic view of augmentation being wrong as part of a more intricate view of the world and life; and the consequence of that was one particular group vying for domination in order to make their views the right views. Might is right, as they say. This makes perfect sense to me and is seen to some degree throughout actual history.


Reality and things based in it, tend to be much more horrifying than fiction, and also, much more interesting.
This I also agree with, and it is probably why DX1 was so engaging. Back when I first played it, I had a friend who was a real conspiracy nut. I asked him to give me all the information he had about the Illuminati because I got so hooked on the DX storyline that I wanted to find out what the reality was. Suffice to say, he gave me so much information that I was like "nah, forget it" and just played through DX again.

Chemix
16th Jun 2008, 16:41
I agree with you for the IW endings and them all feeling like you've done the wrong thing, and also agree about how the Templars sucked.

BUT. I think it's worth noting that I don't think the Templars in IW were actually descendants of the original Templars and those mentioned in DX1. I believe they just named themselves after them on their own. Which means there's no real contradiction or continuity error there. Also, I think you might be looking at them backwards. It sounds to me like you think first they wanted dominance, and then they labelled people unhuman and became crazy. I think the opposite is true. First and foremost they were people with a strict moralistic view of augmentation being wrong as part of a more intricate view of the world and life; and the consequence of that was one particular group vying for domination in order to make their views the right views. Might is right, as they say. This makes perfect sense to me and is seen to some degree throughout actual history.


This I also agree with, and it is probably why DX1 was so engaging. Back when I first played it, I had a friend who was a real conspiracy nut. I asked him to give me all the information he had about the Illuminati because I got so hooked on the DX storyline that I wanted to find out what the reality was. Suffice to say, he gave me so much information that I was like "nah, forget it" and just played through DX again.

I don't think that they're actually related, but they could have picked a different name, something that made more sense.

Demiurge
16th Jun 2008, 17:02
Hmm Tsumaru you must bear in mind that 99% of the gaming population have no clue what a Deus Ex is, let alone know that it is the greatest game of all time and would therefore be totally unaffected by anything that 'seemed' old to you. You also underestimate the power of nostalgia that old characters and familiar locations will have on many seasoned veterans and by no means am I advocating the idea that we completely copy the locations, for example Hell's kitchen could do with an overhall as well as an expansion that allowed traffic to enter this mysteriosly closed-off compound. I am however saying that there is a lot of good old to make use of instead of going overboard with new like IW, that is if the dev team can pull it off. DX didn't give you much choice either until right at the end. I'm sure that there were many earth shattering events (literally if you count LA falling into the sea, how did that happen? Was it an earthquake for sure, or was it caused?) that we don't know about that chould be used. Just because the world is still in one piece in 2052 doesn't mean that there thasn't been a cataclysmic ****up somewhere along the line, and there are hundreds of possibilities that would make for an interesting and world-altering ending now that we come to think about how little we know pre-2052.

AaronJ
16th Jun 2008, 19:16
to lead directly into the events seen in the First game

Everyone disagreed when I said that.

Tsumaru
17th Jun 2008, 00:41
There's a difference between the nostalgic revisit (such as the frozen over Liberty Island in DX:IW) and just going back to the same characters, the same places, the same state of *everything*. I can't possibly see how that could be good.

It's also a contradiction to say "It doesn't matter if there's old stuff - 99% of gamers won't know." and then to say they shouldn't make things new. After all; it doesn't matter if everything's new - 99% of gamers won't know. In fact, if it's nothing like DX1 at all, is it still fine because 99% of gamers won't know? This is a flawed argument.


DX didn't give you much choice either until right at the end.
I know. And that's something a lot of users on this forum complained about. Which is why it's a contradiction for those people to also want a prequel.

Chemix
17th Jun 2008, 02:08
It's not that we want a prequel, it's that we can't see where to go from IW, there is no way to combine the endings, which didn't turn out too great for IW's premise in the first place, but this would be impossible. Everything in the trailer also points to a pre IW setting, if not pre D-Ex. In DX, people had come to at least deal with mechs, whereas the trailer shows riots.

Tsumaru
17th Jun 2008, 06:16
Well, there are people who *do* want to play as Paul in a prequel. Granted, not everybody.
Furthermore, I don't agree that the teaser proves in any way that it has to be set in a time pre-DX:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=77413
And as mentioned earlier; just because you or I can't figure out a way to reconcile the IW endings for a sequel doesn't mean that nobody can. The DX1 endings seemed irreconcilable as well, but they managed. While I agree that obviously the Omar one with a barren world probably can't work - there's nothing to say that they can't come up with a way to put elements of the others in. Suppose that for some reason the global nanite infusion doesn't work, or Helios gets destroyed. Perhaps it's the Templar who destroy Helios somehow? All this while the Illuminati officially have global power, but these people are working underground. I don't know - I'm not great at this. But I'm just saying that they managed for IW, so they can probably manage for DX3 to some degree.

Chemix
17th Jun 2008, 12:08
If you look at the frames of the trailer, you see riots, protesters of augmentation, robotic limbs, ballot boxes, the transhuman symbol and a fetus that looks very visibly modified. That and the resentment towards IW, lends me to think it will be a prequel. It doesn't have to be about Paul, and from the looks of the fetus, it won't be about Paul, it's too early.

jcp28
18th Jun 2008, 00:55
To stay on the subject, it wouldn't be impossible for a sequel to work. You could have the Templar ending cause something that pushes back technological progress for several years. At the same time, a part of the Apostle Corp ending comes through with Tracer Tong struggling to get democratic global governance through. But he encounters obstacles with the Templars and the Illuminati somewhere in the shadows.

That's how I'd think it'd work, but the voiceover in the trailer is the strongest suggestion to me of what it'll probably end up being. The rest, as some say, is pretty much a "tease"

And who was that guy who mentioned Simons? Remember if this is a prequel, things like JC's existence and the high-ranking position Simons had in DX 1 may not come into play yet. Yeah, I know Simons was probably from a rich family from that one conversation you hear between those unatco troopers in that warehouse where you send out that distress signla., but it may have taken him a while to get into the confidence of Bob Page and acheive enough clout to be considered for the position he had in DX1. But he does seem rather unappealing as a protagonist since he has the charisma of an oyster. I think knowing a little about his background could be interesting though. Which a prequel might do.

Demiurge
18th Jun 2008, 02:10
There's a difference between the nostalgic revisit (such as the frozen over Liberty Island in DX:IW) and just going back to the same characters, the same places, the same state of *everything*. I can't possibly see how that could be good.

It's also a contradiction to say "It doesn't matter if there's old stuff - 99% of gamers won't know." and then to say they shouldn't make things new. After all; it doesn't matter if everything's new - 99% of gamers won't know. In fact, if it's nothing like DX1 at all, is it still fine because 99% of gamers won't know? This is a flawed argument.


I know. And that's something a lot of users on this forum complained about. Which is why it's a contradiction for those people to also want a prequel.

I meant from the perspective of a game company, who would have to invest time and money creating new things that may be a risk and not work or have a good old storyline and characters to use, which will be unknown to 99% of anyone who will play the game, and the jury's out on whether the veterans of the series like it so it would seem to make sense from a marketing point of view, but yes I can see that from the way you percieved it it would seem like a bad argument. In the end we must not be naive and should understand that the deciding force will be economics and not this forum. IW-style nostalgia dodn't really do it for me, especially as I never remembered Liberty Island divided into two halves accessed through one harmless-looking door.

As I said earlier, I by no means want *everything* the same, I just would like it if the story ended in such a way that people thought "ahhhhh, so that's why..." and made sense in DX 1. The best way I see of doing this is through re-using *some* limited characters and locations, for DX3 would not be a DX series game if there was nothing tying it to the series. Maybe there could be an option to stay with UNATCO (I always wanted this for the 1st game) ad thus give you two completely different story arcs, but that used different locations, unlike in IW where you were going to the same place no matter what faction you were.

Romeo
18th Jun 2008, 02:46
I wouldn't mind a sequel, and why not have multiple endings, but all of which mesh into either DX1 (prequel) or DX2 (a sequel/prequel)? Another option would be to re-introduce the last moments of IW and allow the player to make those choices again, to allow the current state of affairs be directly influenced by it. What I mean is: The way that they made IW end, could dictate how DX3 begins (Partial apocolypse, technological stone-age, bio-modified cleansing, etc). However, this would take a fair amount of work...

Tsumaru
18th Jun 2008, 04:12
I meant from the perspective of a game company, who would have to invest time and money creating new things that may be a risk and not work or have a good old storyline and characters to use, which will be unknown to 99% of anyone who will play the game, and the jury's out on whether the veterans of the series like it so it would seem to make sense from a marketing point of view
I have to tell you; this is a pretty dumb argument. You are saying that it is always inevitably better to ripoff characters and locations from previous games. And yet history shows that almost every sequel introduces new characters, new locations, and as much new stuff as possible. Do you really think that someone wouldn't have tapped into this remarkable ability to save time and money and market things more effectively by not actually making anything new in their game at all!? They could save thousands of dollars, and make a bajillion in profit!!!11oneeleven1



Another option would be to re-introduce the last moments of IW and allow the player to make those choices again, to allow the current state of affairs be directly influenced by it. What I mean is: The way that they made IW end, could dictate how DX3 begins (Partial apocolypse, technological stone-age, bio-modified cleansing, etc). However, this would take a fair amount of work...
So you want them to create 4 different games, put them all together, and sell it as 1? I suspect that we wouldn't get DX3 for about 10 years if they did that.


Maybe there could be an option to stay with UNATCO (I always wanted this for the 1st game) ad thus give you two completely different story arcs
And you want 2 games sold as 1. This coming from the person so concerned with economics earlier.


The best way I see of doing this is through re-using *some* limited characters and locations, for DX3 would not be a DX series game if there was nothing tying it to the series.
Nobody said a sequel can't be tied to the game. And with Paul as the player in a prequel, it's hardly *some* limited characters and locations. I mean think about it. What is Deus Ex 1? A newbie modified UNATCO agent discovering that UNATCO is bad, finding Tracer Tong in Hong Kong and becoming friends, getting taken around by Jock everywhere, and saving the world. And Paul's history consists of what, did we say? A newbie modified UNATCO agent discovering that UNATCO is bad, finding Tracer Tong in Hong Kong and becoming friends, getting taken around by Jock everywhere, and... well, not quite saving the world. Which is something *against* the idea of Paul. Where could the climax of the game possibly be?

Sure, there are differences. Paul, for one, went to assassinate Tracer Tong if my memory serves me. Plus you won't have the Ambrosia backdrop. And there will be other missions and stuff. But the idea of playing as Paul seems rather low-excitement stuff. It sounds like it would be better as a stand-alone expansion or some sort of bonus game in a Collector's Edition. Kind of like Crysis Warheads where you play as Psycho. As a whole game though? There would just be no real intensity to the storyline, and not worth the ridiculous cost of games these days.



If you look at the frames of the trailer, you see riots, protesters of augmentation, robotic limbs, ballot boxes, the transhuman symbol and a fetus that looks very visibly modified. That and the resentment towards IW, lends me to think it will be a prequel.
So what you are telling me is that everything shown in the teaser points towards a prequel. So... you're telling me that the first modified fetus was in 2027? I don't think that really sits in properly with the rest of the timeline. After all, according to that DX Bible, it was 2029 when they got tehir embryonic incubator working. Up to that point, they had to put clones into women, go through 9 months of pregnancy, and then experiment on the born children. Doesn't really fit, does it?
CLEARLY - those images don't mean anything. Refer to this topic:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=77413

Chemix
18th Jun 2008, 13:03
Did that environment look like the embryonic incubators of DX? No, it looked dark and warm, like the womb of a human almost, albeit the fetus was rather small in comparison to the womb, but proper scale would make it very hard to actually see anything. The modifications do make me feel a bit off on the prequel stance, but 2 years isn't something I think the devs will loose sleep on preserving. Besides, the date could be 2 years after the riots begin and the ballots get passed. There would be no point in showing such images if they had no relevance. I feel as if you're grasping at straws here

Demiurge
18th Jun 2008, 18:42
I have to tell you; this is a pretty dumb argument. You are saying that it is always inevitably better to ripoff characters and locations from previous games. And yet history shows that almost every sequel introduces new characters, new locations, and as much new stuff as possible.

Well to demonstrate the idiocy of this claim I invite you to look at DX and IW. IW introduced many, many new things and shared no real locations with DX, liberty island was made different by the nanite swell. IW was a horrific sequel and did not sell and as a result of this, as well as failures with Thief: DS; Ion storm closed its doors, a great shame for the gaming community. Look at valve on the other hand, Counter-Strike changes very little if at all from 1.6 to Source and yet it is the most popular game in the world, the sequels' unchanging nature has drawn many gamers with the familiarity of the game and the feel that it is an update on a classic.


Do you really think that someone wouldn't have tapped into this remarkable ability to save time and money and market things more effectively by not actually making anything new in their game at all!? They could save thousands of dollars, and make a bajillion in profit!!!11oneeleven1

EA has and does.

Tsumaru
19th Jun 2008, 01:16
Did that environment look like the embryonic incubators of DX? No, it looked dark and warm, like the womb of a human almost, albeit the fetus was rather small in comparison to the womb, but proper scale would make it very hard to actually see anything. The modifications do make me feel a bit off on the prequel stance, but 2 years isn't something I think the devs will loose sleep on preserving ... There would be no point in showing such images if they had no relevance. I feel as if you're grasping at straws here
Thankyou for proving my point! The issue was that MODIFICATION COULD NOT BE PERFORMED ON FETUSES. They had to impregnate women with clones, wait until they gave birth, and then perform modifications. Therefore it CANNOT be anywhere around that timezone. Which leads to two points:
1. The images ARE IRRELEVANT.
2. The images are RELEVANT and therefore it cannot take place in the 2020s.
Read up on your DX history.

Grasping at straws hardly. Note that I didn't even say 2029 was the time where modification of fetuses was done - the embryonic incubator just allowed them to avoid having to impregnate women, but I believe they still waited until they were ready to be 'born'. You will notice that instead they wait until the clones are around age 5 before attempting any experiments. Biomodification of fetuses is not mentioned at all as a possibility in the DX Bible.


Besides, the date could be 2 years after the riots begin and the ballots get passed.
By god man, you're right. Or they could be fifty years after.



As for you Demiurge, I don't think you're even worth arguing with anymore. Counter-Strike hardly counts as a valid example since it has no storyline, no characters, no substance as a game at all. If we follow that train of thought, all you want are constant remakes of DX1. You don't even want prequels or sequels or anything. The best game for you is just updated graphics and minor gameplay tweaks. Is that all you want? Updated graphics and minor tweaks. Updated graphics and minor tweaks. Updated graphics and minor tweaks, maybe some physics improvements too!! Surely I'm not the only person who thinks that's a dumb idea.

Chemix
19th Jun 2008, 13:08
The DX Bible was written nearly a decade ago, and disregarded almost entirely for IW. It is not set in stone for developers. The fact is, you're hell bent on a sequel. Making artwork costs money, each piece may cost hundreds of dollars for a simple rough image, thousands in commercial use even, throwing away money to put in irrelevant images is downright stupid for developers to do. If they can't re-use them and they serve no purpose, then they have effectively thrown away good budget money.

Tsumaru
20th Jun 2008, 00:00
The fact is, you're hell bent on a sequel.
Strange you say that, when clearly YOU are hell bent on a prequel. I DON'T THINK it's a sequel, I DON'T THINK it's a prequel. What I think is that a prequel *with Paul Denton as protagonist* would suck, and that just because you can see the date "2027" in a TEASER TRAILER doesn't mean that the game has to be set in 2027.

As for the rest...
No. Just no.

For one thing, they serve a perfectly good purpose - use in a teaser trailer. Once again, I refer you to this thread: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=77413 For another thing, do you ACTUALLY expect to see these images in the game? Each and every one of them? Because that's absurd. And if not in-game, what else for? How else do you propose that they re-use them? When you give me my answer, think for a second whether or not that means it *has* to be set in 2027 or thereabouts; or if the exact same purpose could easily be applied to a sequel fifty odd years later.

Chemix
20th Jun 2008, 11:52
They appear to be along the lines of concept art, and possibly wall posters, for in game use. It could even be used for a dream sequence, and is quite reminiscent of the mass effect style of vision imagery. Quick flashes that convey simple overall messages.

I don't think it has to be 2027, or that it even will be 2028, I simply think that it'll be around that time. Eidos knows that IW was a giant screw up in the DX line of products, working on something with IW as a base is attempting to run up a commercial brick wall, it's not going to attract the fans and it's not going to bring in new fans, so why waste money on it.

Tsumaru
20th Jun 2008, 12:04
A dream sequence? Sounds kind of lame. Let's HOPE you're wrong there.

As for wall posters for in-game use. I hardly see how they can't be applied to the future? Considering most of the pictures are hardly relevant to any timeperiod at all and many are actually modifications of artwork or images from medical-related books.

I would be willing to bet a lot of money that those images don't show up in our final game except maybe as the teaser itself as an intro vid or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right; who knows. But I just don't see it happening. It seems to me that it is just that - a teaser. Designed to promote awareness of DX3 and get people interested by fancy flashes of imagery and a funky modified fetus.

Demiurge
20th Jun 2008, 18:55
As for you Demiurge, I don't think you're even worth arguing with anymore. Counter-Strike hardly counts as a valid example since it has no storyline, no characters, no substance as a game at all. If we follow that train of thought, all you want are constant remakes of DX1. You don't even want prequels or sequels or anything. The best game for you is just updated graphics and minor gameplay tweaks. Is that all you want? Updated graphics and minor tweaks. Updated graphics and minor tweaks. Updated graphics and minor tweaks, maybe some physics improvements too!! Surely I'm not the only person who thinks that's a dumb idea.

Wrong. I was using CS as a far-out example to disprove your theory that games with newer and newer content are more popular. I have already stated what I want the prequel to be and trying to change my words will not work. Learn to back down when you're beaten and accept defeat with grace, instead of changing what my argument was. On that note I will turn my attention back to the other ideas expressed in the thread.

Romeo
20th Jun 2008, 18:56
Ok boys, play nice.

And for the continuation after a sequel, no, I don't want four different game (that's a lie, I do, but realistically, wont expect it) that's not what I meant. Say it's the Omar ending you choose, yes you see them wiping out the last human, but the game could make it the last human in a certain area. Following this, the Omar head to a city (the opening location of the sequel's gameplay) and, failing to wipe it out, retreat. This leaves the people in power to start out with. If the player chooses the Illumnati ending, the people are of course uplinked to the computer (Helios, I do believe was it's name, although I may be mistaken). However, the sequel would see a small group of rebels sabotage the computer and liberate the people. This leads to an open revolt against the Illumnati, and thus, starting the actual sequel, once again leaves the people in power. This also means the player could choose which faction rises to power once again, if any. If you wish, I can keep going, but I'll assume you understand the general direction of where I'm going with this.

=)

Tsumaru
21st Jun 2008, 01:38
Wrong. I was using CS as a far-out example to disprove your theory that games with newer and newer content are more popular. I have already stated what I want the prequel to be and trying to change my words will not work. Learn to back down when you're beaten and accept defeat with grace, instead of changing what my argument was. On that note I will turn my attention back to the other ideas expressed in the thread.

Irrelevant examples don't disprove theories. Oh and I'll "back down and be gracious in defeat" just as soon as you 'defeat' me, you silly little hypocrite.

I have not changed your argument at all; I am taking it and using a valid logic technique called reductio ad absurdum - reduction to the absurd. Let's run through it again. You gave me the example that "Counter-Strike changes very little and is the most popular game in the world". I assume that you would be saying 'as a consequence of its few and minor changes, it is (the most) popular' because otherwise your example proves nothing. You also offered the example of all the changes in IW and pointed out how poorly received IW was. Once again, if you are not saying that the huge number of changes are the cause of the failure of the game, your examples are meaningless anyway. So now we have the following:
1. Counter-Strike has very few and very small changes, and is the most popular game in the world
2. Invisible War changed heaps and heaps of stuff, and everyone thinks it's absolute rubbish
Presumably we can extrapolate then that the more we change, the worse the game is; and the less we change, the better the game should be.

Therefore you must want only minor changes to a game. It seems to me that the smallest changes you can make are updates on graphics, physics, AI and minor tweaks for gameplay. Changing the storyline will inevitably mean changing the characters and locations, which will inevitably mean you won't like the game. Surely then you must just want Deus Ex 1 rehashed with the technology of today for the best possible game?

Note: I'm not saying what you are directly asking for is the above; but that is what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from your arguments. If you are not willing to accept this, then you have to grant me that the number of changes are not what results in the goodness or badness of a game. Instead, it would have to be something else. What do you suppose that could be?

And as my closing point...

disprove your theory that games with newer and newer content are more popular
I never said anything to that extent at all. Look who is putting words in whose mouth now! All I have been saying is that I personally believe that playing a prequel - and specifically a prequel with Paul as protagonist - would be unenjoyable and that most people who promote such an idea probably have not thought about it too well.



Romeo - I see where you're coming from, but I think it still requires too many changes. All the in-game history will have to be different each time. We're takling about the entire backdrop for the setting of the game, after all. If you look at IW; everything came back to 'the great collapse'. Even if the game follows the same basic line of gameplay and story; they *do* need to create a lot of additional material to substitute each story ending into the game. I'd be happier if they just took two endings (Dentons and Illuminati most likely), found a way to reconcile them, and went from there. I don't expect them to find a way to mesh every single ending.

Demiurge
23rd Jun 2008, 17:18
I am well aware of the meaning and use of Reductio ad absurdum (for trying to explain it the way you did I can tell you have little idea what a fool you made yourself look) and you used it to try and defeat my argument by attacking my examples, however in doing so you completely missed the point and succeeded in setting up a very weak Straw man argument.

My examples were simply used to disprove your theory and in no way do I consider games with new content inferior, but your decision to reduce everything to the absurd not only gives me a sense of your immense immaturity, but also of your desperation to win the argument when the point I made in my last argument has clearly sailed right over your head. As I outlined in my previous post, CS was an "Extreme example", I never said that as a result all copies of old games were superior to games with new content, I was simply showing the facts; that to a majority of gamers the new content does not match what in their eyes, not mine, is a classic game formula. This was my point, not [new content = bad] as you mistakenly perceived it, and reduction ad absurdum logic is about as valid here as the CS storyline.

Your argument also demonstrates a great lack of understanding, to the point where you seem even more of a moron than I thought you were, for your dedication to producing these kind of posts is hardly conducive to the progress of this discussion, moreover you have escalated what was a minor disagreement into the current dispute and are clearly too proud to admit defeat. It is also ironic that you called me a “silly little hypocrite” and yet continued the argument, and in doing so directly proved my point. So it falls to me to end this maturely. Your input is no longer required on this thread and I am not interested in your opinions or flawed reasoning, continuing this argument will fail to elicit a response from me.

Demiurge
23rd Jun 2008, 17:23
Hey Romeo you have some pretty good ideas for possible continuity, but I think that a sequel to IW in unlikely, but hey, I may be wrong. I have always found the beginning an interesting starting point because of the possibilities it allowed and the pre-DX war always did appeal to me, for one thing how did Page get away with ruining the Illuminati when they were so powerful? I have also never seen the Illuminati as having any troops, they are too powerful for that.

Luminous Path
23rd Jun 2008, 17:55
It would be very interesting to explore the rise of Page. The illuminati would probably subscribe to the maxim 'quality not quantity', a small number of well connected influential individuals could potentially pull the strings and would therefore not require a great number of troops. The use of political, social and economic power could have provided the illuminati and Page with all the apparatus they needed to control and manipulate events without military action. To quote the datacube in the pool room at La Guardia, perhaps it is better to capture an army whole than destroying it, in context with page and the illuminati perhaps controlling a select few of the military top brass was enough to gain supremacy. In dx1 I think Bob Page was Morgan Everett's apprentice of sorts, after he learnt all he could he split from the illuminati and Everett. I think a prequel that included information, not necessarily gameplay, on this subject could be a great asset to the game.

Tsumaru
24th Jun 2008, 01:55
Actually, you are right. It wasn't a proper reductio ad absurdum argument - in retrospect I can see that now. However, neither was it a straw man argument; as that would require me to intentionally misrepresent your position. As I distinctly recall mentioning, I wasn't saying that your view itself was that new content is bad; rather that we can extrapolate that line of thinking from the examples you had given so far. But I also mentioned that I do not think you believe such a position is true - I was setting up a point which actually AGREES with you. That Counter-Strike *is* a good game despite the lack of new content; but for reasons other than the lack of new content. Meaning that your "extreme example" is actually given without a context, and thus irrelevant. And it is irrelevant, because you keep saying it "disproves my theory" but I never held such a theory (as I said last time) - meaning that you yourself are presenting a straw man argument.

So while you accuse me of straw man arguments (which I have established is false) - you have now resorted to ad hominem. Who then has the more flawed reasoning?
Since you seem dead-set on not replying however, I would like to point out one final thing. It is not "maturely ending the argument" when you tag such a line at the end of a post riddled with direct personal attacks. This is a cheap low blow. Anybody can make an argument reply the same as before, and then say at the end "I will now end this maturely" as if they are the bigger man. You are not. To end it maturely is to make the ENTIRETY of the post "This is going nowhere, I propose we end it. Let's just agree to disagree here." You have not ended this maturely - you have ended it immaturely. You have effectively plugged your fingers in your ears like a child and said "you are a moron, and I'm not listening laalalalala - moron".

And now it falls to me to end this topic maturely. Do not reply because I have no interest in what you have to say because you are a moron and your opinions are worthless.




I think a prequel that included information, not necessarily gameplay, on this subject could be a great asset to the game.
That would be very interesting; but it's hard to envision exactly how they would implement it all - especially without knowing where the gameplay *would* lie. What do you propose the main setting for the game would be. Do you have any ideas for the character and the general plot?

Chemix
24th Jun 2008, 03:04
Character:
Street Bum, you're just a guy (possibly a gal) that got pulled off the street to be illegally tested on, not that you knew you were made for that purpose. You have no family, you have no training, you're just trying to survive
Pros- Explains why the player needs to train to get better at certain skills, rather than the ex-soldier type that should be well trained in just about everything. No direct family to deal with. Relatable to many people as average Joe to start off with
Cons- Trouble explaining why they can even use weapons. No relations to base plot on (family, co workers, comrades in arms, etc. etc.)

Plot:
MegaTech (a big, malevolent sounding corporation) or Ascend inc (a small company that is really in control of many large companies) is working on the next generation of cybernetic implants and replacement parts. Due to riots, the government has banned such research to calm the people, so it's under wraps. The idea is two fold, the first is to be able to provide working cybernetic prosthetics without making them into metal monsters or obvious cyborgs, allowing them to weave through the crowds without people batting an eyelash, giving them a normal life. The other is to integrate a type of control, a sub-conscious level of structure to their lives that aids the company over a long period of time.

A rival company, Gro corp., is working on organic based technologies that are also illegal, but are more promising, as well as problematic. Both originally took part in the creation of the player, but since then, they've parted ways, and they want the test product for their uses, so they try to get the player to join them, leading them along the promises of a better tomorrow. Both are equally good and evil forces, though the former is stronger militarily than the former, which is better in other departments, like espionage.

Help one, help the other, escape both, or help the people that are stuck in the middle, that's the player's choice.

Tsumaru
24th Jun 2008, 03:19
Hold on, so are we talking nanotechnology or something a little more primitive then that (but not quite as primitive as the mechs like Hermann and Navarre etc)?

The problem I see with this is we're just creating an area in the middle which never existed in DX1. There are some continuity issues there, obviously. If we're talking nanotech, you've got so many different companies all dabbling their hands in it whereas allegedly in DX1 you only really had the UNATCO guys (as the front for MJ12 doing all the original research).

I like the idea of the street bum thing, though. Reminds me of the rumours in IW that the Omar "recruit" by just grabbing bums off the street.

Last question as well though - how does this tie into the other parts pre-DX1. The main thing people liked about the prequel were the familiar characters, familiar environments. How would you have it work within that?

(Obviously nothing we hypothesize here will ever impact what they are actually doing - I'm sure they already have a plan. But it's nice to dream and have ideas anyway.)

Demiurge
24th Jun 2008, 16:35
Hmm Chemix I'm personally not too much in favour of a bum-like person being the protagonist because it would seem too accidental and WTF!? DX allowed for JC's power because he was created specifically for that purpose, and his creation is far more intentional, "The product of imagination" created by a "Cabal of technophiles". I like the idea of rival companies then, maybe versalife had competition which mysteriously vanished?:rolleyes:

Luminous Path
24th Jun 2008, 17:35
That would be very interesting; but it's hard to envision exactly how they would implement it all - especially without knowing where the gameplay *would* lie. What do you propose the main setting for the game would be. Do you have any ideas for the character and the general plot?[/QUOTE]

dx1 was brilliant because so much thought went into the various datacubes and philosophical texts that were dotted around. I felt that the library in the Paris Cathedral was a stroke of genius. In dx3 information in this format about Page/Simons/Everett and how this relates to their status in dx1 would really give insight into the cutscene at the beginning of dx. As to gameplay, maybe a mission including an abandoned illuminati lab with various data chronicaling how Page split from the illuminati and gained such supremacy. Maybe he stole some software or plans for something like the Aquinas node at X-51. Even if it is just a few snippets of information on datacubes that only more experienced and resourceful (i.e. players and fans of dx1) will find and understand, it would not take much for this to be included if the dx3 team have done their homework.

Absentia
24th Jun 2008, 18:29
....I was so angry when I discovered the winner ended it with "He woke up, and realised it was all just a dream." I ranted and raved for a week straight about the injustices of it all.


We had a similar thing in primary school, where for one half of the lesson you would start writing a story, and then for the next half you would pass it on to someone else on your table and they would finish it
I wrote the start of some epic sci-fi thing in the first person with lots of spaceships and lasers and killing, and then this girl carried it on and said that I in fact did not live in a spaceship but instead i just decorated the hell out of my garage to make it look like the interior of one, because i'm a sad little boy with a clearly unhealthy obsession with spaceships - obviously FAR from the truth.

Anyway, about DX...
I would definitely prefer it as a sequel, but a prequel or indeed a "requel" might possibly be good PROVIDED it is delivered well enough.
But the question in everyone's mind about a sequel is "What about the multiple, contrasting endings?" And agreeably, I don't think you could implement all of them like what was done in DX:IW.

BUT.

Consider this: The only proof you've had that each of the endings actually worked was the very brief video cutscenes after each one, and none of these I really thought "Wow, so this is exactly what happened" - it just looked to me more like an idealistic 'vision' of the way that it should theoretically turn out after you follow whatever faction you chose to end it with.

So, with that in mind - what if NONE of them happened? What if there was some kind of last-minute happening which meant that something entirely new with even more complications then came about?
It's very corny I know, but it even fits with the title of the game.

"Deus ex" is from the phrase "Deus ex machina" which refers to a solution at the end of a story which is completely disassociated with everything that has happened or been presented so far.

As a totally stupid example of this - Lets say a plot where people try to get money by doing all sorts of crap, and it doesn't look as if they will get it but suddenly at the very end, a relative dies and they get the inheritance money which is exactly what they needed. Think of the film Dodgeball.

I think this wouldn't be such a bad idea at all, and it gives new room for more ideas and originality to come about, without sacrificing all happenings of DX:IW (although it would mean that the endings were pretty much useless, but hey, joining the Illuminati in DX1 was rendered totally useless in DXIW.)

Chemix
24th Jun 2008, 20:29
Well, I came up with that plot in 5 minutes at 1 AM, so don't take it too seriously. The point of "the bum" is that every game set in the near or far future is putting players in the seat of the super soldier, or the best of the best, or what have you, and I think that there should be a change of pace. Someone who wasn't meant to change the world that defies destiny.

jamesthefishy
24th Jun 2008, 22:06
Well, I came up with that plot in 5 minutes at 1 AM, so don't take it too seriously. The point of "the bum" is that every game set in the near or far future is putting players in the seat of the super soldier, or the best of the best, or what have you, and I think that there should be a change of pace. Someone who wasn't meant to change the world that defies destiny.

Like crysis - opinion a storyline for kids in which our hero runs around like a chicken with his head cut off waits for his whole team to die and then keeps going when we all know in any organization that they would pulled the whole team out after at the latest the first mission and to think the guy would live through all of that. Half-Life isn't believible but at least freeman didn't have a choice, thats when its most believible. When humans are cornered into death we tend to do a lot more then when we have a choice in something. Then at the end he tends to go back into the damn island WITHOUT saying to damn words. I just won't play the second one. or bioshock - opinion In which sucks because of its predictible storyline and poor characters. They should have made more of the splicers jump out of corners or something, I could tell where everyone was all the time. proved no challenge. both these games suffer from not being a regular "bum" but like portal they have taken this bum strat. and while giving extactly what it promised it also added the unknown side of the character, like gordan freeman actually. We have no idea where, who, what, or anything else in fact all anyone knows is the file name for the model is chell. Things like this ALWAYS attracts people. Also gives us the more unknown conspircy type feeling. Where you don't even know your name who can you truly trust?

Tsumaru
25th Jun 2008, 03:42
Consider this: The only proof you've had that each of the endings actually worked was the very brief video cutscenes after each one, and none of these I really thought "Wow, so this is exactly what happened" - it just looked to me more like an idealistic 'vision' of the way that it should theoretically turn out after you follow whatever faction you chose to end it with.

So, with that in mind - what if NONE of them happened? What if there was some kind of last-minute happening which meant that something entirely new with even more complications then came about?

It's interesting to note that you don't get the exact endings from DX1 as the start of IW either. Think about it...

DX1 endings:
Illuminati - the Illuminati are actually in power (behind the scenes, of course), JC is one of them, Everett seems to be controlling things well enough
Helios - you've merged effectively with Helios and have control over global communications
Dark Age - global communications completely shut down, you get a dark age where supposedly people are going to end up living in isolated villages and stuff

Invisible War beginning:
They've just been through a Collapse reminiscent of the Dark Age ending. However, this Collapse means that Everett won't have global power as per the Illuminati ending. We also do have JC merging with Helios, but once again he doesn't have control over global communications - but he does have extreme knowledge of nanotechnology. We end up with JC doing his own little work (I don't think we ever know what) on Liberty Island until his body can't handle the strain and he goes into a coma or whatever. At this point we're looking at the Illuminati coming into power *after* the Collapse and during the rebuild. This isn't even Everett, but rather Dumier and DuClare.

So what we have is elements of each ending, but not really the endings themselves in full or even directly as a result of JC's actions in the first game.

Now let's think about the Invisible War endings.

Great Advance - universal biomodification, Helios can view everyones thoughts and feelings and moderate the world based on this. A perfect democracy ruled by JC/Helios.
Illuminati - JC and Paul die, the Illuminati come into the foreground as dictators; but rule the world positively and well. They use the Aquinas Hub and essentially set up a new Helios in a space station, called Ophelia. This allows them to monitor and control global communications.
Knights Templar - biomodification is obliterated, JC and Paul die, and the Templars rule the earth with religious totalitarianism.
Omar - constant war and fighting leads to the world becoming a barren wasteland which leaves the Omar as the only ones surviving

If we suppose that all we require are *elements* of each, perhaps only coming into play after other parts of the story, it is not quite as hard to come up with a solution. I think the best idea (as I think I may have mentioned earlier in this or another thread) would be to take the Great Advance and the Illuminati and put them together.

Suppose that the Illuminati come to global power but *without* Ophelia. Just as regular dictators. They seem to have a great understanding of what people want and need (which is why they were able to control everyone through the conflicting WTO and Order), and if they can reconcile the differences they could have their global peace. But without the control of communications through the Aquinas Hub. The reason for this is because at the same time, the Knights Templar managed to destroy the hub and release their anti-nanotech virus. But unfortunately their army was still destroyed or something. JC and Paul physically survive, but run away into hiding because Helios and everything has been destroyed. Flash forward decades into the future and you can set up pretty much any scenario of conflicting organisations. Because in this situation nobody has *total* control through the Aquinas Hub, anything can be set up. The Knights Templar officially wiped out nanotech for now; but that doesn't mean someone can't have brought it back - maybe JC and Paul started again with ApostleCorp in hiding. They still have all their schematics and whatnot, perhaps?

I don't see it as completely impossible to make a sequel while still getting the elements of the IW ending in place. You certainly won't get all of them (obviously the Omar can't survive if the Knights Templar wiped out nanotech; nor can anybody survive if we allow the Omar to have their scorched earth; and obviously Helios and Ophelia can't both have total control) but you can get parts of most in my opinion. And still leave it very open-ended for the story.

jamesthefishy
26th Jun 2008, 20:39
Well I think that helios and opeha w/e that ai is both get destroyed TOTALLY, Paul dies because paul is lame but in exchange so does chad and duclare. JC and Tong become good partners again and push the knights back to the edge. The Omar and what JC and Tong creates push back the knights but tensions rise with the JCTONG Company and the Omar's black market in corp wars. then bam we are basically at the beginning of a new game, JC Tong and the Omar fights while the knights get larger. so the knights make there first come back attack at a JCTONG training place (or maybe our main characters first day on the job at a place like unatco from the first DX) Anyways you escape before learning much/anything basically now is when you get control of your character, in the street, no biomod ability yet and a knife. (something falls on you maybe and you eventually regain consciousness)You work up through a few weapons and finally meet up with a choice to either stay pure, go full blast biomod omar style or take the medium. That seems like a good storyline.

Maybe daedalus survives takes over that one hologram chick system and eventually contacts our main character but is very inured.

Tsumaru
27th Jun 2008, 01:13
I don't think it would work too well if we have the Knights Templar as a main faction again. It'll be too similar to DX1. But the rest of your idea has some potential. Although I suspect Tong should probably be dead quite soon - he's pretty damn old. =P

AaronJ
27th Jun 2008, 02:19
The only thing I want answered is Ophelia.

jamesthefishy
27th Jun 2008, 06:59
I don't think it would work too well if we have the Knights Templar as a main faction again. It'll be too similar to DX1. But the rest of your idea has some potential. Although I suspect Tong should probably be dead quite soon - he's pretty damn old. =P

dude tong knowns sacred Chinese way to stay alive. I would rather have the dentons die, Im so sick of them.

pHdeus
28th Jun 2008, 19:02
Eidos is left with the need to start with a canvas on with to create their next work of art. I would assert that the more blank the canvas, the more creative they can be with or without JC or Paul as part of the world.

Is you want JC, Paul and the rest to be history, so be it.

I am sure that Eidos can still create something truly original. After all they did it once. No one asked for Deus Ex, and I suspect that no one could have asked for it.

My personal opinion is that I would like to continue playing as JC if that is possible. His vision of the world was not realized in Deus Ex 1 and not one of the choices given to him at the end of the game.

Kevyne-Shandris
29th Jun 2008, 00:26
Why was JC expunged from his tube two years early to be released in 2052

Could be anything from greed, to being in a hurry with making a nano-army.

We may never get a real answer, considering how some of the DX world was just thought up over lunch (meaning it wasn't filled out, and where everything branched off too -- it was one hell of a time to develop a game then, between the mess at EIDOS - Dallas and maybe even Austin. If you didn't know, it was during the John Romero Dakatana over deadline release fiasco).

I really don't know how this world is going to evolve, considering the timelines and the "soul" of the game is missing (Warren Specter -- who somehow kept the Austin office together enough during the really nasty infighting at the Dallas office). But Specter also is the one who pushed DX:IW, and fans have mixed feeling about his role in changing what was, to what shouldn't have been. In all the chaos, they managed to pull off a story, and it appears the story may have been filled out more for that movie (is this what we're getting now? The movie script?). The movie was reported to be much darker -- JC being much more troubled than in the original game -- so this maybe the theme and timeline that will be DX3.

But I don't think it'll be a prequel (flashbacks; video from then, yes). To do so will mean JC is out of the picture, and that will be like having DX:IW2 -- poison. Look and feel of DX:IW, and I careless what new fans are made, the old fans will return to the modding world for reprieve again, and probably writing off this franchise for good.

It makes more sense to go after the endings -- the aftermath. Because we need to find out what happened due to our decisions. That dark period, will be a good back drop for the darker JC that was hinted at via the movie, too. If DX:IW's timeline is kept, that does mean the "Dark Age", afterall.

Tsumaru
29th Jun 2008, 02:29
My personal opinion is that I would like to continue playing as JC if that is possible. His vision of the world was not realized in Deus Ex 1 and not one of the choices given to him at the end of the game.
Umm... ApostleCorp ending in DX:IW?

pHdeus
29th Jun 2008, 14:12
Perhaps.
Thanks for the reply.;)

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Jul 2008, 20:58
Eidos is left with the need to start with a canvas on with to create their next work of art. I would assert that the more blank the canvas, the more creative they can be with or without JC or Paul as part of the world.

Is you want JC, Paul and the rest to be history, so be it.

I am sure that Eidos can still create something truly original. After all they did it once. No one asked for Deus Ex, and I suspect that no one could have asked for it.

My personal opinion is that I would like to continue playing as JC if that is possible. His vision of the world was not realized in Deus Ex 1 and not one of the choices given to him at the end of the game.

I do believe the 'blank canvas' is the best way to go; it definitely does give more freedom to creativity and that has to be a good thing.

Whether the Dentons show up or not as main characters, I don't personally think is important. Reference to them would suffice... though I appreciate that others may think differently on that one.

The only 'necessity' for DX3 to be successful is to have an awesome game that really captures the "essence" of Deus Ex original. :cool:
The setting and story style will obviously continue, no matter what characters we meet and play.

I really can't wait for the release date to arrive! :)

Station409
3rd Jul 2008, 09:53
Who is to say that you aren't one of the many other clones that were in the tubes? It could still be set after the events in IW. there is nothing to say that all of the clones were destroyed. Maybe a third faction, or the remnants of Majestic 12...

pHdeus
6th Jul 2008, 00:20
The only 'necessity' for DX3 to be successful is to have an awesome game that really captures the "essence" of Deus Ex original. :cool:
The setting and story style will obviously continue, no matter what characters we meet and play.

I really can't wait for the release date to arrive! :)


Ah yes, the Essence. You have summed it up.

I totally agree. :o