PDA

View Full Version : No current game will dethrone Deus Ex



dentonjc
24th Oct 2008, 22:37
I really really hate all this new developers that they don't have vision there is no game like deus ex. they have to change the way they make games. but only in my dreams one day :mad2:

Uranium - 235
24th Oct 2008, 22:46
I've yet to see a game in the last 7 years that can even come close to reaching the games made 7+ years ago. They're resurrecting PC franchises left and right and utterly ruining them.

dixieflatline
24th Oct 2008, 23:00
I think a big part of is that game designers are vastly more unoriginal than ever before.

Games are being codified into genres. Earlier, even 5 years ago, designers were more open to trying new things, making things more complex, and were generally more creative.

Now a days, thanks in large part to the amount of money involved, designers are losing creative vision and studios want to take less chances.

I think it 10 years there'll be like ten genres (RTS, MMORPG, FPS, uhh...) and each game in the genre will have exactly the same mechanics, with different 'skins.' Game design degree programs will be the big thing, and I expect this will strangle the originality out of many potential game makers...

Thank god there will always be indie games.

Larington
24th Oct 2008, 23:04
It's going to get worse before it gets better, this is in part because a lot of the graduates just want to make more futuristic/fantasy shooter/hack&slash games, rather than actually innovate. Yes, there are exceptions, but few that will get picked up for wider scale publishing.

It will require gamers, ALL GAMERS EVERYWHERE to stand up and say "no more" before things will change, and the system won't change until you change it. Fact.

dixieflatline
24th Oct 2008, 23:39
Hmmm I don't know if there is much hope of that though.

The number of gamers that appreciate innovation are out numbered like 10:1 to casual gamers who just want something that easy to play. If it comes down to voting with the wallet, then the most unoriginal games are going to come out ahead.

For every person that doesn't buy a game because it is unoriginal, there are like 10 dudes who think "Oh cool this is just like Gears of War!" and will buy it.

Not sure if that is accurate, but that is sort of how I see it ...

~Psychotic~
24th Oct 2008, 23:47
I feel most games fail because the developers pay more for stunning looking graphics rather than beautiful pieces of writing. A writer, in my opinion, should be getting more pay than the art designer.

Why? Because, the writing (and gameplay design as well) should be considered the most important parts of any video game. They should come far before the graphics of a game, but do they? No. I can play hardly any games because of graphics, and most of those games look sweet but have incredibly crappy storylines.

I prefer most of the old school games, mostly games made before the 2003-era because their gameplay and storyline and usually superior to that of the 2004+ era of gaming.

pewbeng
25th Oct 2008, 03:12
Everyone thinking of Fallout 3 right now, show me your hands!

Larington
25th Oct 2008, 09:16
Some really promising games have failed due to publisher error as well, usually in the form of releasing just before/after the release of a very highly anticipated competing game... And/or on top of that failing to give the game an appropriate marketing budget.

For that matter, I think theres a major argument to be had for releasing anything like a thinking mans shooter during the middle of a year rather than the end, not only is the market less crowded and you don't necessarily need to spend millions on marketing, but on top of that it vastly increases the chance your game will make an impression on reviewers (Who have very limited reviewing time during the 100 mile review dash of Oct-Nov) and gamers - increasing, in turn, the chance of it getting game of the year accolades.

Mindmute
25th Oct 2008, 11:04
Most sequels/resurrected franchises fail because developers change things around for no reason. Rather than having a valid reason to change something, they'll change it first, and then attempt to justify it later with stuff that doesn't hold up against outside logic. They're so afraid of "doing the same thing" that they fail to realize that this is what a sequel is supposed to be, new content within the old framework.

I believe it's the first time we utterly agree... It gives me a strange feeling... ;)

dentonjc
25th Oct 2008, 17:59
I think but this is my opinion that deus ex1 is like one hit wonder I whish I won the lotto to make my dream come true and for everybody here:(

Mr. Perfect
25th Oct 2008, 18:21
They're so afraid of "doing the same thing" that they fail to realize that this is what a sequel is supposed to be, new content within the old framework.

Word.

This is why Thief fans love Thief 1 and 2, but T3 turned some off.

Other examples include:

Interstate 76 was followed up by Interstate 76 Nitro, same framework, new content. Interstate 82 changed it all and the franchise died.

Descent 1 and 2 had the same gameplay, but 3 changed it around. 3 did alright, but didn't sell like the first two and the franchise stopped dead.

There are probably other examples, these are just some of the ones I cared about.

Cugros
25th Oct 2008, 18:50
No game will dethrone Deus Ex?
A strange statement. Not to say that I don't love Deus Ex over everything else, and I wouln't think it was the greatest game of all times. But you got one thing right: to date no game has surpassed Deus Ex in quality, in my point of view.

Maybe the whole gaming industry is going through a rough patch right now, and it will pass, and soon we will once again have have loads of awesome games like Deus Ex.
This is the optimistic view.

But the pessimist side of me is rebelling: what if the games will never become any better? Then it would be obvious that the games themselves aren't bad, but we just have a bad taste in games, and that we are a group of old, grumpy and outdated players. The gaming industry will have evolved and left us behind. As I am a part of "us", this would be no fun at all to me. But if this all is to happen, and we truly will be seriously outdated, we should admit it: There will be no game like DX, because DX is no longer considered a good game, and no one wants to make a boring game. Many other gamers like other games already. If Deus Ex truly was universally the best game ever, why isn't everyone playing it? Maybe we are outdated. Maybe we are wrong.
I don't want to be outdated.

But I like to stick to the optimistic view: someday there will be a wide selection of excellent games, gamers will be appreciated, and all will be fine... All will be fine... Fine...

WhatsHisFace
25th Oct 2008, 19:23
I've heard good things about the ambitious "S.T.A.L.K.E.R." game, and have seen many reviews which reference Deus Ex. I'm going to look into it soon.

gamer0004
25th Oct 2008, 19:29
I loved the atmosphere, but it was just not complex enough. The first 20 minutes or maybe 2 hours are great but after that it seemed that I had seen it all. The first time you can save a friend by providing a medkit is awesome, but the third time it happens it gets repetitive. Just like the quests: they all involve (mass) shootouts. I just got bored and since then haven't played it anymore. However, I do recommend it to you because even those first two hours were very intense and immersive and awesome.

foxberg
26th Oct 2008, 01:10
Actually, there were some good sequels. Doom 3 and Quake 4, for example.

GmanPro
28th Oct 2008, 23:11
I feel most games fail because the developers pay more for stunning looking graphics rather than beautiful pieces of writing. A writer, in my opinion, should be getting more pay than the art designer.

Why? Because, the writing (and gameplay design as well) should be considered the most important parts of any video game. They should come far before the graphics of a game, but do they? No. I can play hardly any games because of graphics, and most of those games look sweet but have incredibly crappy storylines.

I prefer most of the old school games, mostly games made before the 2003-era because their gameplay and storyline and usually superior to that of the 2004+ era of gaming.

I agree with some of what you are saying, games these days are unoriginal and tasteless. And I too prefer the games made around or before the 2003 era, (with the exception of a few epics like Half-Life 2, Dawn of War etc).

But still I think that I should point out that making 3d models is freakin hard man. I tried a couple of times (unsuccessfully :( ) to make simple mods for HL2 and I just couldn't figure out the modeling programs. I could map and handle some simple coding but XSi was just too damn confusing. I remember thinking that those guys deserve to be payed more, I don't care how easy it is for them or how much they are currently being paid, it should be more.

But I do see your point, gaming companies should definitely be focusing more of their attention towards good writing and the like. :thumbsup:

On a side note, I've been seeing this type of decay everywhere recently. A lot of new movies are pretty terrible, a lot of new cars look the same, and also video games are getting all generalized. I'm sure I can think of other examples later... Or maybe I'm just imagining it all?

spm1138
28th Oct 2008, 23:53
I feel most games fail because the developers pay more for stunning looking graphics rather than beautiful pieces of writing. A writer, in my opinion, should be getting more pay than the art designer.

Why? Because, the writing (and gameplay design as well) should be considered the most important parts of any video game. They should come far before the graphics of a game, but do they? No. I can play hardly any games because of graphics, and most of those games look sweet but have incredibly crappy storylines.

I prefer most of the old school games, mostly games made before the 2003-era because their gameplay and storyline and usually superior to that of the 2004+ era of gaming.

If this were entirely true we'd all still be playing text adventures (Yeah, I know people still do play text adventures but) or Nethack :nut:

You specify 2003 as being old school but those games were all shiny technological marvels compared to the games from when I started gaming.
My definition of old school was a time when "torrents" meant dubbing C90s on your dad's tape deck (with tape over the copy protect slot) and noone had even heard of the internet... :p

Even if you compare 2003 to the 90's it's still a big bump forwards in technology.

(Eeeh. Kids today. Don't they're born.)

You can also make the argument that the technology constrains the design of the game and that games have been a visual thing for quite some little while now.
Games - graphics = a lot of squinting at a lot of text. Obviously that works for some things because you have text adventures/interactive fiction but it totally falls down for other kinds of games where you want a more dynamic world.

Better technology = they can show you more stuff and make it convincing. Look at faces in games now. Look at the "Hard Rain" demo. Isn't that making a difference to what they try and do with games?

I'm not disagreeing that the writing does need more attention or that it's weak generally but you're kidding yourself if you think the graphics and tech are not important.

That stuff kind of defines the limits of what the writer can get on screen, even if it's wasted a lot of the time by the sub-Steven Seagal straight-to-DVD title storytelling.

v.dog
29th Oct 2008, 19:06
Writing is becoming a lost art because it doesn't market as well as a shiny new shader; when was the last time you saw a game poster with paragraphs of gripping text?

Playing some of the older games (http://www.gog.com/en/frontpage), I've realised two things; 1) I do miss the modern graphics of newer games (Descent is ugly), 2) graphics do not a good game make (Dx vs Prey).

Devs should be making use of new technology, but it shouldn't be at the expense of story, gameplay, character depth, and most importantly, fun.

Since development budgets are blowing out ("unless we sell 2 million copies, we're screwed!") largely because the time and effort required to make art assets to today's standards, I'm not surprised that they're becoming increasingly risk-adverse and that every game now is a derivative of an existing franchise.

That's why I think the future of games is back where it all began; the indie developer, the bedroom coder. This is where the best games are now coming from; games like World of Goo (http://2dboy.com/games.php), Braid (http://braid-game.com/), Crayon Physics Delux (http://www.kloonigames.com/crayon/), and so on (http://store.steampowered.com/search/?sort_by=Metascore&sort_order=DESC&genre=Indie).

Since they are small, they can take the risk without it costing millions if it all goes pear-shaped. So we're more likely to see greater innovation and better gameplay coming from them, than the big name publishers.

Hopefully tho', we'll see more Cinderella stories like Portal, where a small indie game proved a concept could work, gets swept up and given the big-budget treatment.

Then you have the best of both worlds. :)

Laokin
29th Oct 2008, 19:26
Anybody who is a fan of DX should thoroughly enjoy Fallout 3. It's in the same vein... it's even got it's own little conspiracy theory. The dialogue options are actually more impacting than either DX.... you get to blow up a whole town right in the beginning....or you can disarm the atom bomb and save the town.... or you can ignore it all together and let the people of the town deal with the problem. I went hacking/stealth, with many other options available similar to DX. It even has the locational damage of DX 1, individual life on each limb... when the limb is dead, that limb is disabled. "Stimpacks" replace healthpacks.... and there is always an alternative like the candy bars, you'll find things like oatmeal and canned foods and purified water (since it is in a Fallout the water is contaminated with radiation... purified water is important in this game) There are "Energy Packs" that refill your energy... but i'm very early in, and don't really know whats in store for the energy, I'm thinking special abilities like biomods or plasmids like bioshock. Either way, it's very in depth with a huge emphasis on the story and player made decisions like DX.

I highly suggest people check it out.... even if they wanted a true sequel to Fallout, this is an amazing game.... atleast so far.


While it doesn't sport mind numbingly awesome graphics, they are definitely far better than any DX game... or even Stalker.

The beginning of the game felt very much like DX, running around a bunker checking lockers sneaking around knocking people on the head with a police baton.... I'm just rambling now... Eidos watch out, FO3 is in the same genre as DX3, and a lot of people on the net have been praising FO3 as some sort of spiritual successor to DX. Better make sure your game does more things true to DX1 than FO3, sadly.... it looks like a loosing battle for DX, with the auto heal that implies loc damage is out.

Red
29th Oct 2008, 21:09
i'm very early in, and don't really know whats in store for the energy, I'm thinking special abilities like biomods or plasmids like bioshock.

Well, you do have perks with each level up.

I absolutely love zillion of skills, upgrading them with skill points, equipment and temporary boosters... Also the conversation system is implemented very good (speech skill governs your ability to lie/persuade characters and it's depicted by a percentage of success right next to the dialogue options. Wicked).

I'm also very early in and I'm totally engulfed by the game. If DX3 will be any near F3, then I'll be happy.

Also, I agree entirely with the rest of your post.

SageSavage
29th Oct 2008, 21:29
Aww...stop it already! **** May copy of Fallout 3 won't arrive before monday. :nut:

Laokin
30th Oct 2008, 07:12
Aww...stop it already! **** May copy of Fallout 3 won't arrive before monday. :nut:

Boy... your so in for a treat.... it's like -- a nice cold Ice Cream on a hot summer day kinda good... I'm glad other people are enjoying it, I for one thought it was going to bomb, ya know coming from Bethesda and all. (I really didn't like Oblivion, it had that potential... but it's only good if you spend 40 years fixing the problems with a fresh install by installing mods to fix it... sad the community finished that game lol)

mr_cyberpunk
4th Nov 2008, 05:32
If Omikron the Nomad Soul 2 came out it could potential beat Deus Ex, that's assuming Quantic Dream doesn't make the same mistakes they made with the first one.

Also People comparing Deus Ex to Fallout 3... WTF? how can you compare them? they are completely different. One is a giant freeform RPG FPS TPS Hybrid, the other is a non-linear closed world FPS RPG Hybrid. Sure they have completely redundant skill trees.. but I mean you can't compare them. They are very different games.

Laokin
4th Nov 2008, 05:43
If Omikron the Nomad Soul 2 came out it could potential beat Deus Ex, that's assuming Quantic Dream doesn't make the same mistakes they made with the first one.

Also People comparing Deus Ex to Fallout 3... WTF? how can you compare them? they are completely different. One is a giant freeform RPG FPS TPS Hybrid, the other is a non-linear closed world FPS RPG Hybrid. Sure they have completely redundant skill trees.. but I mean you can't compare them. They are very different games.

Not really, the only major difference is load screens and no biomods. Other than that the gameplay is pretty 1:1.

Local Damage with disability
The freedom of choice
Multiple endings
Conspiracy theory

I mean Deus Ex kind of holds your hand a little bit compared to FO3, but like I said... a lot of the perks give you the abilities of biomods. It's just basically renamed and re-tooled but the same overall concept. OOOOOH you can switch to TP in fallout.... the thought that the view of a game changes the genre is laughable at best. The core fundamentals of the DX series is alive and relevant in the third itteration of Fallout, the conversation tree's, the RP elements... the general atmosphere is even similar.

FO is post apoc... I consider DX post Apoc, just not by nuclear war.... but rather the Grey Death. Both super disasters caused by man that result in small pockets of healthy people among the sick and the poor. You obviously must have never played FO3. Do a google search "Fallout 3 Deus Ex" and you will see LOTS and LOTS of people saying the same thing I am....

Wouldn't hurt to know what your talking about before you speak... nor would it hurt to add something relevant and descriptive as your argument as to why they aren't a kin.

P.S.
Non-linear is practically synonymous with free form. Notice you said "One is freeform RPG FPS TPS hyrbid, the other is non-linear (practically the same as saying free form) RPG FPS hybrid. The only difference between the two descriptions you deem non-comparable is Fallout includes a third person mode that is practically useless. I believe the word you were looking for is "Open World" in which doesn't really change core game play values much. Just means no load screens. Example GTA III vs GTA San Andreas. Those games are the same genre, except GTASA includes an RPG Hybrid and is actually an open world (i.e. no load screens) while GTA 3, had no RPG elements and had load screens for each island. Does this mean that if we threw in an OPTIONAL first person camera into SA that it wouldn't be a similar experience to GTA III???

Thus, your argument doesn't hold water.

mr_cyberpunk
4th Nov 2008, 05:57
Its Freeform in that you can pick what to do next, then applies a non-linear gameplay on top via story options. I left open world out by mistake you immature prick because I mentioned "Closed World". Its very late and unlike you I actually have a life.

Oh yeah and on the subject of multiple endings, ALL 4 OF THEM SUCK. Something Deus Ex didn't have.whoops forgot the spoiler tags.. oh well.

Laokin
4th Nov 2008, 19:27
Its Freeform in that you can pick what to do next, then applies a non-linear gameplay on top via story options. I left open world out by mistake you immature prick because I mentioned "Closed World". Its very late and unlike you I actually have a life.

Oh yeah and on the subject of multiple endings, ALL 4 OF THEM SUCK. Something Deus Ex didn't have.whoops forgot the spoiler tags.. oh well.

Excuse me, but..... Deus Ex was in the same vein. All you effectively did was say Fallout 3 sucks and called it a different game. It's your opinion if the story sucked and the endings weren't very good. Still, doesn't differentiate the GAME PLAY of the games being damn near exact. If you cannot see that they are very similar and you resort to calling me an immature prick because you choose to avoid facts, then, it's you after all who is immature. I won't even stoop to your level to call you a prick. I have a life as well it just so happens we are on different schedules and I am up at night. Thanks for the insults -- I should report you, considering we were just having a conversation and then you have to slander me.

You still didn't point out a single thing that proves the game play is not similar. In fact, the game is the same "Genre" so it's almost a given it's going to play similarly. In other words, Doom very much played like Duke Nukem, if one were to like Doom -- even though Duke Nukem is a different game, it's VERY similar -- so by that standard one can imagine you'd like Duke Nukem as well. Oh yeah, duke had a Third Person camera too, shucks there goes my comparison.

Abram730
10th Nov 2008, 16:33
Fallout 3 has a lot in common conceptually with DX... One thing I didn't like was the VATS... Perhaps have something like that for the consoles but not for the PC.

Fallout pulls you in.
Not a perfect game, but very good and a style of game people like.
fans of fallout 1&2 complain about the departure but search deus ex fallout 3

"Fallout 3 ships 4.7 million in first week."

"Bethesda proclaims that postapocalyptic role-playing game for 360, PS3, PC topped $300 million in sales at launch."$$$$

That's making money and concider they had a worst case(prerelease leak on the 360). Also in a tough economic climate. I hear average production costs are around 15 million, a fraction of movies.
Armageddon (1998) cost 140 million to make and its opening weekend was $36 million.

Is piracy that bad or do they need meds? Crying all the way to the bank with multi millions in profits? Pissing on customers and it's just greed. Sins of a Solar Empire had no CD/DVD copy protection included and if you loose your disk you can download it for free. It cost less than a million dollars to make, and recently passed its 400,000th unit sold full-price at retail -- and has racked up over 100,000 units sold via digital distribution$$$$ and it was made in a basement.

Game makers who make sucky games blame pirates.

Laokin
10th Nov 2008, 19:25
Fallout 3 has a lot in common conceptually with DX... One thing I didn't like was the VATS... Perhaps have something like that for the consoles but not for the PC.

Fallout pulls you in.
Not a perfect game, but very good and a style of game people like.
fans of fallout 1&2 complain about the departure but search deus ex fallout 3

"Fallout 3 ships 4.7 million in first week."

"Bethesda proclaims that postapocalyptic role-playing game for 360, PS3, PC topped $300 million in sales at launch."$$$$

That's making money and concider they had a worst case(prerelease leak on the 360). Also in a tough economic climate. I hear average production costs are around 15 million, a fraction of movies.
Armageddon (1998) cost 140 million to make and its opening weekend was $36 million.

Is piracy that bad or do they need meds? Crying all the way to the bank with multi millions in profits? Pissing on customers and it's just greed. Sins of a Solar Empire had no CD/DVD copy protection included and if you loose your disk you can download it for free. It cost less than a million dollars to make, and recently passed its 400,000th unit sold full-price at retail -- and has racked up over 100,000 units sold via digital distribution$$$$ and it was made in a basement.

Game makers who make sucky games blame pirates.


Well said. I went a little deeper into the mythos of piracy in a few other posts. They might be worth reading, since we share an opinion. Just click on my name ---> view all posts.

comy
10th Nov 2008, 20:45
I haven't yet played FO3, but judging by Bethesdas previous release (Oblivion) I am still skeptical about how "great" FO3 really is. For me Oblivion was a fun, gorgeous rpg, but when you completed the major quests which were for me too short (I hoped for much more content, based on the previous title in the series) it soon became stale and repetitive with little depth to it. The Fallout franchise (1,2) was the other way around, not quite the beauty queen but it had one of the richest world to explore, filled with tons of quests, very clever and funny dialogs and an extremely rewarding feel to it in the end.
I am noticing that developers these days are taking less risks. I remember some 10 years ago when I would frequently hear of developers trying their best to find new ways to create games: from arcade 2d, to FPS, to strategy and then to all kinds of mixes, rpg+fps (ala Deus Ex), strategy + 3rd person, etc. They really tried to push the limit, but nowadays the biggest thing you see is like when Gears of War was released they introduced the "over-the-shoulder" 3rd person camera view, and that was "the next big thing" when all games started copy&paste ... c'mon, where's the brilliance of the old days with games like Sacrifice, Crusader: No Remorse, Deus Ex, original Fallout series... ? When are we gonna get a game which we will replay every year and not put it on a shelve to sit for the rest of time itself? When will we play a game which we will play for 5 straight hours, go to sleep and the next day just barely hold on until we would be able to get straight back to it, only then feeling a sense of relief? :o
Hope that DX3 comes along to prove me wrong for being such a pessimist though :D
Maybe, maybe.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkBNKa2KXZE&feature=related)

GmanPro
10th Nov 2008, 21:00
Play Fallout 3. It is way better than Oblivion. Trust me.

ikenstein
10th Nov 2008, 21:34
Play Fallout 3. It is way better than Oblivion. Trust me.

i didnt get it yet becos the vats combat system sounded sucky. maybe ill give it a try.

GmanPro
10th Nov 2008, 21:45
The vats system is kinda awesome actually. It was cooler the way they did it in Fallout 1 and 2. I miss being able to target people's eyes, and their groins especially. The groin criticals were priceless in those games cause they would always say something funny when u shoot them there. But if you really don't like vats, then don't use it. Its that simple.

SageSavage
10th Nov 2008, 22:59
Ok, all in all I love Fallout 3 but one thing I don't like is that that the dialog-options seem a bit too flat. Most of the time you don't have to think very carefully about what you ask a certain person - just go through everything that's highlighted on the list. There could have been more consequences and tricky dialog options if you ask me.

Another thing I don't like is how often invisible walls limit your movement.

DXeXodus
11th Nov 2008, 03:40
I just bought FO3 this weekend and boy am I enjoying myself. It is a great game. For those that haven't bought it yet and are undecided (based on only about 6 hours of gameplay):

Pro's

- Beautiful game world, will really depress you with it's gritty realism
- Lots of weapons
- V.A.T.S is great IMO (Localized damage FTW)
- Lots of things to do and places to explore
- Plenty of room for mods (already over 200 mods out there for the game)

Con's

- Animations and dialog are unfortunately rather Oblivionesque
- Only one type of ammo for each gun
- Invisible walls

Naturally, thats not all, but there really isn't that much wrong with this game.


The vats system is kinda awesome actually.

I agree. The V.A.T.S system is a lot better than I expected. It really adds a nice cinematic feel to the gameplay.

SageSavage
11th Nov 2008, 09:16
Another (minor) issue: there are no item descriptions anymore.

gamer0004
11th Nov 2008, 12:30
I just bought FO3 this weekend and boy am I enjoying myself. It is a great game. For those that haven't bought it yet and are undecided (based on only about 6 hours of gameplay):

Pro's

- Beautiful game world, will really depress you with it's gritty realism
- Lots of weapons
- V.A.T.S is great IMO (Localized damage FTW)
- Lots of things to do and places to explore
- Plenty of room for mods (already over 200 mods out there for the game)

Con's

- Animations and dialog are unfortunately rather Oblivionesque
- Only one type of ammo for each gun
- Invisible walls

Naturally, thats not all, but there really isn't that much wrong with this game.



I agree. The V.A.T.S system is a lot better than I expected. It really adds a nice cinematic feel to the gameplay.

DX3:

-No localised damage
-Only one type of ammo for each gun
-An unconvincing and unimmersive game-world which is not gritty enough.
-"Kewl" weapons
-Conflicts with DX1
-No shadow sneaking
-No skillpoints for aiming
-Auto-heal

GmanPro
11th Nov 2008, 13:33
^^
Don't forget auto-heal :thumbsup:

Laokin
11th Nov 2008, 19:18
DX3:

-No localised damage
-Only one type of ammo for each gun
-An unconvincing and unimmersive game-world which is not gritty enough.
-"Kewl" weapons
-Conflicts with DX1
-No shadow sneaking
-No skillpoints for aiming
-Auto-heal

Am I in the dark here... when did they say only one type of ammo? Last I heard the weapons were highly modable which would imply to me difference in ammo selection.

"An unconvincing and unimmersive game-world"
We haven't played the game yet, nor seen an in game video... so where do you get off saying that?

DX was always about "kewl" weapons. Just look at the Dragon Tooth Sword??? I'm sorry, was that not "kewl" enough?

"No shadows for sneaking"
Well... until you see how well the stealth is in this game (which you simply cannot say sucks until you see the level design and the stealth augs.) I mean seriously just cuz they made the world a little brighter doesn't mean stealth has to suffer.

"No Skill points for aiming"
This is one I agree with. Aiming should never be left to skill points. I'm not saying skill points need to be removed, but skill points should only effect automated "passive" abilities. AKA lock picking or hacking (well hacking is no longer automated but you get the point.)

I mean it's not like it's overtly challenging to point a pistol and shoot some one in the head. JC was WAAAAY to inaccurate for a super soldier.... a 12 year old boy who never shot a gun before has more base accuracy than JC at the start of the game.

No local damage, is once again an assumption as they haven't confirmed nor denied it... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's gone

health regen... this again? really?

Here goes,

I was trying to go to bed last night when it hit me. The best thing DX3 can do is move to an auto heal system. Just not one of the norm. What they need to do is model the energy/health from the game Supreme Commander's resource system. For all that don't know... this is an RTS with UNLIMITED resources. You get mass/energy per second. This is how DX life/energy should be.

You auto regen life at a certain tick per second. (That tick must be balanced to the damage enemies do in order to know how fast it needs to be.) You purposely make it slow. This leaves the ability to have candy bars and energy cells. When you eat candy bars and the like you get a "buff" that increases the rate of you recovery plus 2 ticks a second (example purposes... once again this is a balance issue.) You can make it stack up to 10 times. This could also allow you to have painkillers aswell. I.E. you take a pain killer it fluffs your life up 60 points and then has a minus feed on it. For every 2 you lose you gain one. The half life would be 30. I.E. if you had 1 life and pop a painkiller you would now have 61 life. By the time the effect of the pain killer (or what ever item you would like to fit this niche) is over, you'd be left with 31 life plus the original feed rate of your life. I.E. 31++++. Each "+" represents 1 recovery tick a second. You could then allow the regen augmentation to fit back in. Regen can up your feed rate + 10 ontop of the default while making your energy - 20. So if your energy was + 10, minues 20 would leave you at -10 drain on your energy. Sort of like Guild Wars, or Supreme Commanders resource system.

This would allow you to have a localized damage model once again. You could bring in new items to address disabled parts of the body. You can also make it so a Disabled part of the body is a reduction in feed to the auto health model. I.E. disabled limbs could make you bleed to death essentially. Say 1 broken limb is -5 feed. A broken arm and a broken leg is -10 feed subtracted by your positive 5 would leave you at - 5 a second. You can also leave health kits in the game... This encourages the feel of finding medkits without the redundancy. Med kits can patch a disabled limb back to "working" status no more... no less, and then the auto recovery can heal the rest. Alternatively you can use painkillers/candybars to combat the bleed effect or just be fortunate to have chosen the regen aug and fix yourself right up. You would need much less med kits/biocells to keep you going as they would only serve as a temporary boost or a splint in a terrible situation. This system has no "easy mode" implications, as the only matter that can effect the difficulty of the game is how much power is packed into the "punch" of the enemy. I.E. the enemy head shots you, you get a blurry vision pixel shader effect (not horrendous just subtle so you know you've been shot in the head) and your down to 25 life. Hiding wouldn't be adequate unless you ran completely away and lost the a.i. which once again... relies on level design. The only solution is to employ a painkiller to stay in the fight. When the fights over, you can hobble to the next one... or hit the regen aug, or eat some candy bars and your prepared for the next one.

On another note... what if you ALWAYS had painkillers.... like, you have an auto-morphine system. Anytime you are belted below a "critical life" warning, the morphine is administered. You could put a cool down on the morphine, or make it so it's a pickup that it automatically used until you have none left. Once again... only being effective really temporarily, with the side effect of staying alive because it would always give you half the original amount of life (the painkiller gives you) back. Anyways my main point is... auto-regen can work.... and better yet, it can make sense.

Once again, nobody has stated how the Auto Regen system works. I find that with the proper tweaking/dev love my system can work out beautifully and still feel like Deus Ex.

P.S.
I'm going to post this in a relevant thread as well... so people who are interested in this topic of conversation can read it.

gamer0004
11th Nov 2008, 19:42
Point is, now up to 4 different magazines have mentioned that Deus Ex 3 will feature a health regen system similar to the one used in CoD4. So, however great your ideas would be, it won't happen. It will suck.

EDIT: it's 5 now: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=198546
"damage will be dealt with by a very Call of Duty-style auto-heal"

CoD4 regen also excludes localised damage; if not then it would be a really strange and broken system (it just wouldn't work).
Dragons Tooth Sword was, well, "kewl" yeah. Funny now you mention it: it was therefore generally criticized... Even though it still makes more sense than the weapons we've seen so far (except for the assauly rifle which looks only slightly "kewl") (you know, with the Triads and the gunfire detectors and stuff).
"which you simply cannot say sucks until you see the level design and the stealth augs"
Yep, IW comes to surface here again. In DX it was possible to sneak without having to use augs, they just made it easier at the cost of energy. In IW it was quite impossible; without being able to rely on shadows there are three options:
A. You have to use augs to be able to sneak everywhere (which is annoying)
B. The maps will be filled with so many objects that it's possible to sneak without using augs (but having so many objects in a level doesn't make any sense)
C. There are enough air vents to be able to sneak everywhere without using augs (but having so many air vents in a level doesn't make any sense).

Of course, A and B could be combined... But there would be need of even more air vents than in DX (in which they were already overused according to some) and more objects. It still would not be possible to do this without making the maps very unrealistic; there would have to be huge design flaws combined with very stupid way of arranging the machinery and other large items to create such possibilities.

""No Skill points for aiming"
This is one I agree with. Aiming should never be left to skill points. I'm not saying skill points need to be removed, but skill points should only effect automated "passive" abilities. AKA lock picking or hacking (well hacking is no longer automated but you get the point.)

I mean it's not like it's overtly challenging to point a pistol and shoot some one in the head. JC was WAAAAY to inaccurate for a super soldier.... a 12 year old boy who never shot a gun before has more base accuracy than JC at the start of the game."

I agree that the skill system in DX was not perfect. But that doesn't mean they should leave it out completely! Firing a gun is not the same as using a mouse and keyboard. When you run or walk you can't aim very well. But it would be very annoying if your screen would go up and down in a realistic way when you're running. Therefore in some games it's not possible to shoot while sprinting. The DX solution, though flawed, was best: moving made your aim worse. But it was a bit too extreme; your accuracy should be better than that of the average NSF terrorist and it shouldn't take about 5 seconds to aim. More like 1 second, maybe 2. But the system is the best.
Of course, this is just a gameplay feature so it doesn't matter that much. It will just make the game less fun for me, but that is subjective of course.

As to "An unconvincing... gritty enough"; so far all the images are just pretty an overly sci-fi. The world will not look like that in 20 years, nor likely ever. It's over the top, it's impracticle, it's expensive, doesn't look good... Yes, we think it looks good, but we're a bunch of cyberpunk geeks. Normal people (families, well about everyone except for some cases) would never build homes like that, decorate their rooms like that etc.

Laokin
11th Nov 2008, 20:22
Point is, now up to 4 different magazines have mentioned that Deus Ex 3 will feature a health regen system similar to the one used in CoD4. So, however great your ideas would be, it won't happen. It will suck.

EDIT: it's 5 now: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=198546
"damage will be dealt with by a very Call of Duty-style auto-heal"

CoD4 regen also excludes localised damage; if not then it would be a really strange and broken system (it just wouldn't work).
Dragons Tooth Sword was, well, "kewl" yeah. Funny now you mention it: it was therefore generally criticized... Even though it still makes more sense than the weapons we've seen so far (except for the assauly rifle which looks only slightly "kewl") (you know, with the Triads and the gunfire detectors and stuff).
"which you simply cannot say sucks until you see the level design and the stealth augs"
Yep, IW comes to surface here again. In DX it was possible to sneak without having to use augs, they just made it easier at the cost of energy. In IW it was quite impossible; without being able to rely on shadows there are three options:
A. You have to use augs to be able to sneak everywhere (which is annoying)
B. The maps will be filled with so many objects that it's possible to sneak without using augs (but having so many objects in a level doesn't make any sense)
C. There are enough air vents to be able to sneak everywhere without using augs (but having so many air vents in a level doesn't make any sense).

Of course, A and B could be combined... But there would be need of even more air vents than in DX (in which they were already overused according to some) and more objects. It still would not be possible to do this without making the maps very unrealistic; there would have to be huge design flaws combined with very stupid way of arranging the machinery and other large items to create such possibilities.

""No Skill points for aiming"
This is one I agree with. Aiming should never be left to skill points. I'm not saying skill points need to be removed, but skill points should only effect automated "passive" abilities. AKA lock picking or hacking (well hacking is no longer automated but you get the point.)

I mean it's not like it's overtly challenging to point a pistol and shoot some one in the head. JC was WAAAAY to inaccurate for a super soldier.... a 12 year old boy who never shot a gun before has more base accuracy than JC at the start of the game."

I agree that the skill system in DX was not perfect. But that doesn't mean they should leave it out completely! Firing a gun is not the same as using a mouse and keyboard. When you run or walk you can't aim very well. But it would be very annoying if your screen would go up and down in a realistic way when you're running. Therefore in some games it's not possible to shoot while sprinting. The DX solution, though flawed, was best: moving made your aim worse. But it was a bit too extreme; your accuracy should be better than that of the average NSF terrorist and it shouldn't take about 5 seconds to aim. More like 1 second, maybe 2. But the system is the best.
Of course, this is just a gameplay feature so it doesn't matter that much. It will just make the game less fun for me, but that is subjective of course.

As to "An unconvincing... gritty enough"; so far all the images are just pretty an overly sci-fi. The world will not look like that in 20 years, nor likely ever. It's over the top, it's impracticle, it's expensive, doesn't look good... Yes, we think it looks good, but we're a bunch of cyberpunk geeks. Normal people (families, well about everyone except for some cases) would never build homes like that, decorate their rooms like that etc.

Well, Blade runner was a bit absurd.. yet is a critically acclaimed movie. The fact is, it's not supposed to be realistic. DX, is like an alternate dimension... so I don't see that as being valid. Ya know, we can see so far into the future that the common place "Casual" gamer can believe some aliens made a ring in space to destroy other planets. This ring also... some how, magically has an atmosphere... water... beaches, tree's air... nitrogen. This is silly, yet a best seller. Halo... if you live under a rock.

The accuracy system... yeah I get what you are saying, and I thank you for putting your opinion out there. Once in which I semi agree with. I just think the answer is a dynamic crosshair. Think Counter-Strike. When running you are considerably less accurate. This however doesn't refute the fact that when standing still or even crouched JC couldn't hit a barn with base accuracy.

IMO the way to handle this issue is with weapon mods. add in a stabilizer or a folding stock. When such is in play... one could be more accurate when running. Look at the Army, or even the SWAT team. They aren't at full sprint mind you, but they are hardly walking when they aim down the sights. What enables them to make such shots.... The folding stock (or the regular stock lol.... dependent of the weapon of choice really.)

So once again... don't drop the skill point system. Just make it so it doesn't effect accuracy. Better yet, some of the skill points could be spent of fast reloading and things of that nature... that once again are automated. Skillpoints = A map of automated abilities. Look at any RPG... when you use skill points they hardly effect the user dependent skills.

Should there be weapon specializations... sure. That's about it IMO. And yes your 100000% accurate when saying firing a gun is different then a mouse and keyboard. The fact that it still relies heavily on one's hand eye coordination still cannot be ignored. This is what makes certain players better than others. Some people like the ability to be overtly better at something than some one else. I.E. some one with good hand eye coordination shouldn't be punished so some one with terrible hand eye coordination is rewarded. I mean, the game presents choices for a reason. If I'm not good at shooting... Then stealth is maybe more how I should play. That's the point in DX... to give the user the ability to play that benefits the users RL skills such as hand eye coordination or even logical thought. Some one who is smart is more apt to set up a sticky bomb trap and facilitate the situation properly to cause the biggest body count possible. This is what makes DX unique... not dumping points into accuracy, just to get back to where I naturally am.

spm1138
11th Nov 2008, 20:50
DX's shooting system is definitely one of the weaker aspects. I can see where they were coming from with it. It's a copy of R6's plugged into the RPG-lite system. It's meant to be immersive-sim. But it carries over the weaker aspects of that system AND makes them excessively bad at lower skill levels.

It's OK if you want a not-very granular simulation of various factors and it works for some stuff. In other situations it feels totally wrong and it gets pretty silly when you plug very large numbers in as modifiers.

A player skill based system - which from what they've said will definitely not allow you to just point and click with perfect accuracy - can work much, much better for that part of the game, I'm pretty confident.

I've been thinking this ever since I played Angelheart's (http://www.mapraider.com/Angelheart)"Containing Criminals" with the "Infiltration" TC for UT99. That map is a remake of the docks from DX. The mod is a realism mod where control of the weapons is largely down to player skill. The factors that expanding crosshairs are an abstraction of are simulated to a greater or lesser degree... within the technical restrictions of the UT99 engine obviously. Weapons recoil and the bullets go where the muzzle recoils. The player breathes. Bullets are subject to gravity and the atmosphere. If you wanted to become a great sniper then you spent days or weeks practising. The "downside" was that some people would never be great at stuff.

I'm not saying DX3 should consider take such a hardline approach but playing a similar looking map with more visceral, powerful gunplay definitely got me thinking about that side of the DX. Replaying DX now I think that's still true. Seeing how unusable the rifles are when you start and how perfectly accurate they are once you've got L4 and recoil suppression on there the system just seems weak.

You *could* represent most things in DX with a skill dependent minigame though if you wanted to btw.

System Shock had player controlled hacking which was amazingly cool.

You can have player controlled rewiring and lockpicking too. Splinter Cell had these incredibly fun and immersive mini games... well, I liked them anyway.

You could also hybridise the systems and have a skillpoint based component and/or you could make the player better at something in a really subtle, but visible way the more they did it.

Not saying they should, just that there's no inherent reason why SP are needed.

It's really just a gameplay decision about the depth of simulation they didn't want, the level of abstraction they did want and that they felt disposable pick-ups and SP based skills was a handy balancing act.

Laokin
11th Nov 2008, 21:15
DX's shooting system is definitely one of the weaker aspects. I can see where they were coming from with it. It's a copy of R6's plugged into the RPG-lite system. It's meant to be immersive-sim. But it carries over the weaker aspects of that system AND makes them excessively bad at lower skill levels.

It's OK if you want a not-very granular simulation of various factors and it works for some stuff. In other situations it feels totally wrong and it gets pretty silly when you plug very large numbers in as modifiers.

A player skill based system - which from what they've said will definitely not allow you to just point and click with perfect accuracy - can work much, much better for that part of the game, I'm pretty confident.

I've been thinking this ever since I played Angelheart's "Containing Criminals" with the "Infiltration" TC for UT99.

You *could* represent most things in DX with a skill dependent minigame though if you wanted to btw.

System Shock had player controlled hacking which was amazingly cool.

You can have player controlled rewiring and lockpicking too. Splinter Cell had these incredibly fun and immersive mini games... well, I liked them anyway.

You could also hybridise the systems and have a skillpoint based component.

And/or you could make the player better at something in a really subtle, but visible way the more they did it.

Not saying they should, just that there's no inherent reason why SP are needed. It's really just a gameplay decision about the depth of simulation they didn't want.

Well said. SP isn't needed but it's also Deus Ex and not splintercell. Hacking has been replaced by a mini game :rolleyes: I guess can deal with that. Locking picking should be like DX 1 with lock picks AND multi tools... instead of just having some sort of universal key. I can deal with a lock picking mini game.... Theif 3's was nice. Splinter Cell's was nice too. Skill points could make picking locks easier though.... you shouldn't have to spend them, they should automatically go up the more you actually pick locks. All in all, I think dumping in SP is kind of dumb in a game like Deus Ex. They should all auto adapt to your play style.... I.E. The more you shoot, the better you get. The more you pick locks.... the better you get. Instead of actually dumping the points into a field you wish. Experience points shouldn't be universal. By definition, XP should be relevant to the task your applying it to. I.E. WoW's profession system. (That's about the only thing they did right from a math point of view. Lets not delve to deep into this by saying things like WOW sucks or Herbalism is retarded because you have to hunt plants.) The system in which the professions leveled is how ALL rpg's IMO should be. If I use a fire ball in an RPG that fireball should level based on how many times I use it. (You can make it so you HAVE to use it in combat in order for it to become more powerful... as to stop spammers from being over powered.)

I hate the notion of having to be a mathematician in order to have a good build. I have numerous friends who hate RPG's for that very same reason.. but love the game play, and refuse to play because they have to do the math and workout what is a "good build."

Over all... stat points are a good thing.... just implemented badly. Leveling up... and then dumping points I received for my EXPERIENCE in lock picking into Gun Accuracy is nonsense. It defies the definition of experience.

San Andreas had it on lock down. Shoot mad people in the face with the pistol and become a pistol professional. You are then rewarded with dual pistols! It makes every gun useful... and then relies on the player to choose which he is most comfortable with. Then making it better and better as you use it. Instead of using pistols gaining exp points and then dumping the points into swimming. See how that makes no sense... aka it's nonsense.

XIphIas_gLadIus
12th Nov 2008, 00:41
Have you seen the multiple endings in fallout 3? you didn't get an exposition on how you affected the different places you visited in the long run like in the previous ones(i'm using the fallout series to explain).

No attachment to the characters, if i was a bad or good guy people that had heard of me or seen me do bad things actually treated me as a bad or good guy,
not "welcome to corneria"

the characters mattered i played baldur's gate 2 as a paladin once a paragon of civility and i STILL had edwin in my party because i LIKED the guy he was fun and interesting, now fun an interesting is being like samuel l. jackson or having an accent, the game industry is going backwards,

a hell so many reasons (and more development on these reasons as well) i'm a lazy **** i won't continue, just look at the immersion previous games in general, and those games didn't have 10 or 9.6,
they suffered with 8s for their bugs if they had them no forgiveness for an
aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh i'm not gonna go on, i'm right, i know it (sounds cocky i know that too).
i just wanted to this of my chest, good bye.

GmanPro
12th Nov 2008, 03:46
I agree with your post except I think I should point out that Fallout 3 DID show a end movie showing how your character affected the world.

I was a good guy the first time I played through it and it showed some of the good things I did, i.e. the Lincoln memorial with his head back on, and megaton with its bomb defused...

gamer0004
12th Nov 2008, 14:13
Well, Blade runner was a bit absurd.. yet is a critically acclaimed movie. The fact is, it's not supposed to be realistic. DX, is like an alternate dimension... so I don't see that as being valid. Ya know, we can see so far into the future that the common place "Casual" gamer can believe some aliens made a ring in space to destroy other planets. This ring also... some how, magically has an atmosphere... water... beaches, tree's air... nitrogen. This is silly, yet a best seller. Halo... if you live under a rock.


Well, Gears of War was absurd as well. And yet I liked both games. They are supposed to be set in a alernate universe, so it doesn't matter really much.
However, in a game in which immsersion and story are important elements and if that game is supposed to take place in this world (yet a few years into the future) then it should make sense.

I remember readin a book once, in which a nuclear war had been fought and because of that the world was suffering from global warming. Greenland was now... green :P Lush environments etc. while Europe was practically a desert.
So, they send warships to Greenland to conquer it.
So far, so good. But then the stupidity starts. They spot a small boat and insteed of getting a man to measure the depth of the water etc. they just rush behind it, and one ship gets stuck on a sandbank. That's pretty unrealistic, nobody is so stupid (because small sailboats don't go too far on open see). But that wasn't the worst part.
In Greenland, women had taken power and because of that there was no violence or criminality there anymore :scratch:
First of all, it's not like women are always innocent.
Secondly, even if there was a government that did not use violence, it would still not mean that it's subjects would be harmless... I mean, a hammer makes a pretty good weapon, and there are always psycho's who start killing people.
It's stupid, it will never happen.
However, if the book was set in a fantasy world and the inhabitants of Greenland were supposed to be a peaceful race, well yes, then that wouldn't have been strange. But it doesn't work for mankind.

Same with DX3: if it would've been set in a fantasy world, then it might have made sense. But IRL people will never decorate their livingrooms like that. Or produce weapons like that, or tentacle (:rasp:) augs.
DX was great because the world was pretty conventional and believable; building look like that or might look like that, weapons (except for dragson's tooth sword and plasma rifle perhaps) look like that or might look like that. Augs would work like that if it would be possible by that time (of course we can't be sure of that, but it could be).

Torley
15th Nov 2008, 17:57
My favorite game designers are both aware of constraints (including self-imposed limits) and know when's right to "cross the threshold" and break down walls.

We're in a different climate than a decade ago, but oft-cited "gameplay" was, is, and always be a key reason why you want to play a game. Even when we get portable holoprojectors, new tactile methods of input, etc. people will romanticize "the old days" and saying how today's graphics weren't as pretty, but the games were fun to play. ;)

It's a tough thing when a lot of money is involved, because playing it safe is easier than taking risks on unproven ideas, franchises, etc. When you have nothing to lose or don't feel a lot of external pressure, it's far easier to be mobile (as is the case with single or small teams of game devs) and innovate — Jenova Chen is a fine example of this.

Laokin
15th Nov 2008, 19:28
Well, Gears of War was absurd as well. And yet I liked both games. They are supposed to be set in a alernate universe, so it doesn't matter really much.
However, in a game in which immsersion and story are important elements and if that game is supposed to take place in this world (yet a few years into the future) then it should make sense.

I remember readin a book once, in which a nuclear war had been fought and because of that the world was suffering from global warming. Greenland was now... green :P Lush environments etc. while Europe was practically a desert.
So, they send warships to Greenland to conquer it.
So far, so good. But then the stupidity starts. They spot a small boat and insteed of getting a man to measure the depth of the water etc. they just rush behind it, and one ship gets stuck on a sandbank. That's pretty unrealistic, nobody is so stupid (because small sailboats don't go too far on open see). But that wasn't the worst part.
In Greenland, women had taken power and because of that there was no violence or criminality there anymore :scratch:
First of all, it's not like women are always innocent.
Secondly, even if there was a government that did not use violence, it would still not mean that it's subjects would be harmless... I mean, a hammer makes a pretty good weapon, and there are always psycho's who start killing people.
It's stupid, it will never happen.
However, if the book was set in a fantasy world and the inhabitants of Greenland were supposed to be a peaceful race, well yes, then that wouldn't have been strange. But it doesn't work for mankind.

Same with DX3: if it would've been set in a fantasy world, then it might have made sense. But IRL people will never decorate their livingrooms like that. Or produce weapons like that, or tentacle (:rasp:) augs.
DX was great because the world was pretty conventional and believable; building look like that or might look like that, weapons (except for dragson's tooth sword and plasma rifle perhaps) look like that or might look like that. Augs would work like that if it would be possible by that time (of course we can't be sure of that, but it could be).

Deus Ex is a "Fantasy World." Do you REALLY think the triads are going to be an issue in 2050? That's not what made DX awesome.... what makes DX awesome is imagination. It's quite obvious like I said in other threads that the DX humans are more advanced then us. 50 years isn't a long time, and if you think in 40 years we will have invisibility built into our body's your nuts. Let alone having a built in all purpose healer. Ya know an aug that fixes broken bones and disabled limbs in seconds.

DX isn't even close to "Realistic" technology wise and that's the point. The rest of the game is as realistic as it possibly could have been. It's kind of like Star Wars. That was a LONG TIME AGO in a galaxy far far away. This would imply humans were born elsewhere and were there longer or they were smarter than us.

The DX universe pretty much proves that in the year 2010 they STILL would have had much better technology compared to us. There is technological law that states this.
http://www.jimpinto.com/writings/3laws.html

Stop complaining just to complain. And yeah, you can feasibly have "Metal Walls" for VERY, VERY, VERY cheap. The wall may not be made of metal, it may just be an aluminum sheet bolted into the wall with a hidden mounting bracket. Me and my brother worked at a place called "Fabri-tech" in which we were contracted to build a room with sheet metal walls for optimal acoustic bounce... aka Echo. Why did he want that.... wasn't my business, what did it cost him... $400.

Before people start saying metal this and metal that... you can make something look metal, without it being COMPLETELY metal. Who are you to say what visual trends should be "in" or "out" in the future?

In fact, we are starting to create new compound building blocks. We have ULTRA light concrete, it's about as light as condensed styrofoam yet it's stronger than any concrete we have today. It's also... cheaper. What would it take to give something a metallic finish for cheap? I'm sure it's not Steel Walls... so give it a break.

P.S.
Gears of war isn't set in a different Universe... it's set WAY into the future. Huge difference. Also, just because DX takes place on "Earth" it can't be an "alternate universe?" I'm pretty sure the Grey Death makes it an alternate universe. Because... you know that disease is NEVER going to exists... let alone wipe half the planet.

*sigh*
:mad2:

DXConspiracy
15th Nov 2008, 22:30
DX3:

-No localised damage
-Only one type of ammo for each gun
-An unconvincing and unimmersive game-world which is not gritty enough.
-"Kewl" weapons
-Conflicts with DX1
-No shadow sneaking
-No skillpoints for aiming
-Auto-heal

Hello,
I just read some news on a gaming-website about DX3.

OH MY GOD!

I think DX3 will be an EPIC FAIL, compared to the godlike DX1 if that's true what I was seeing.

Why? Well...I agree with the topic, that no current game can dethrone DX1. Please excuse if I repeat something what was already said before.
To start with the quotes facts:

- Only one Ammo-Type: What is this? Kindergarten? DX1 is known for its complexity. With only one Ammotype, a Game may be fun for amateurs and people who like simple things. There are enough stupid shooters on the market. What is wrong with today's game designers? Do they think we are all dumb? Where's the Atmosphere? If It is a prequel to DX1 where we hat different kinds of ammo you cant't say thats a futuristic thing where all weapons have same ammo. lol.

- global damage: I think the healthsystem of DX1 was very good. Who needs a global damage? Hitzones make no sense without localized damage system.

- gameworld: Again, DX1 is a masterpiece of level design in my opinion. The levels are great with lovely details, you have to play the game often and with open eyes to find little secrets.+

- No shadowsneaking: WTF? The big thing in DX1 was...you could sneak the whole game or just get a big bunch of weapons to shoot your way...now that was a great freedom in gaming when DX1 was released.

- Auto-Heal: The most sucking thing ever invented. May be fun for senselees shooters. But that's definitely not the right thing for a serious rpg-shooter.

I also read a quote from Lead Designer Jean-Francois Dugas:

DX1 was kinda "slow"

If that is true: DX1 was slow...hmm. Sorry pals, I think such a person mustn't be Lead Designer of a Deus Ex-Game. :mad2:

If DX3 will become that what I think, I won't buy it and prefer playing DX1 for the 7th or 8th time! My Savegames ended with a Time around 30-40 hours...only the GTA-Games can reach that amount of time played!

DX1 was fantastic in:
- Atmosphere (Dialogues, Soundtrack, Story)
- Freedom
- Replay-Factor

Who needs big bang special-FX when the content sucks? So please, DX3 design team: PLEASE make a good game, no trash like DX2. You have a very important mission, don't disapoint us, the community. The real fans of the think that made Deus Ex famous.

I'd like to hear a statement from the game designers to my (our) concerns about this game.

Oh and please don't delete my post, those actions don't make you credible. ;)

SageSavage
15th Nov 2008, 22:47
If DX3 will become that what I think, I won't buy it and prefer playing DX1 for the 7th or 8th time!
Problem solved, world saved, life is worthwhile again.

spm1138
15th Nov 2008, 23:53
Hello,
I just read some news on a gaming-website about DX3.

OH MY GOD!

I think DX3 will be an EPIC FAIL, compared to the godlike DX1 if that's true what I was seeing.

Why? Well...I agree with the topic, that no current game can dethrone DX1. Please excuse if I repeat something what was already said before.
To start with the quotes facts:

- Only one Ammo-Type: What is this? Kindergarten? DX1 is known for its complexity. With only one Ammotype, a Game may be fun for amateurs and people who like simple things. There are enough stupid shooters on the market. What is wrong with today's game designers? Do they think we are all dumb? Where's the Atmosphere? If It is a prequel to DX1 where we hat different kinds of ammo you cant't say thats a futuristic thing where all weapons have same ammo. lol.

- global damage: I think the healthsystem of DX1 was very good. Who needs a global damage? Hitzones make no sense without localized damage system.

- gameworld: Again, DX1 is a masterpiece of level design in my opinion. The levels are great with lovely details, you have to play the game often and with open eyes to find little secrets.+

- No shadowsneaking: WTF? The big thing in DX1 was...you could sneak the whole game or just get a big bunch of weapons to shoot your way...now that was a great freedom in gaming when DX1 was released.

- Auto-Heal: The most sucking thing ever invented. May be fun for senselees shooters. But that's definitely not the right thing for a serious rpg-shooter.

I also read a quote from Lead Designer Jean-Francois Dugas:


If that is true: DX1 was slow...hmm. Sorry pals, I think such a person mustn't be Lead Designer of a Deus Ex-Game. :mad2:

If DX3 will become that what I think, I won't buy it and prefer playing DX1 for the 7th or 8th time! My Savegames ended with a Time around 30-40 hours...only the GTA-Games can reach that amount of time played!

DX1 was fantastic in:
- Atmosphere (Dialogues, Soundtrack, Story)
- Freedom
- Replay-Factor

Who needs big bang special-FX when the content sucks? So please, DX3 design team: PLEASE make a good game, no trash like DX2. You have a very important mission, don't disapoint us, the community. The real fans of the think that made Deus Ex famous.

I'd like to hear a statement from the game designers to my (our) concerns about this game.

Oh and please don't delete my post, those actions don't make you credible. ;)

gamer0004 isn't on the team making the game.

I am pretty sure he has few "facts" there he has not made up himself for purposes of Eeyore like moaning.

If you can't confirm what he said elsewhere it's probably just what he has surmised at this point in time.

Your quote is from a much larger interview (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/23/deux-ex-3-inflammatory-hit-chasing-quote-special/) which you haven't bothered reading.

Your post is stupid.

gamer0004
16th Nov 2008, 09:36
gamer0004 isn't on the team making the game.

I am pretty sure he has few "facts" there he has not made up himself for purposes of Eeyore like moaning.

If you can't confirm what he said elsewhere it's probably just what he has surmised at this point in time.

Your quote is from a much larger interview (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/23/deux-ex-3-inflammatory-hit-chasing-quote-special/) which you haven't bothered reading.

Your post is stupid.

I did not make anything up, there is only one type of ammo per weapon, there is no shadow sneak, there will be auto-heal á la CoD4 and that means there will be no localised damage.
It is possible that there will be bossfights unlike DX, but it is possible that there are bossfights similar to DX, we can't be sure of that.
My comments on the gameworld are purely based on the revealed augs and the ingame screenshots which look very unlike DX (and I'm not even talking about the renaissance style right now).

On the RPS article: I think they're wrong in proclaiming that that quote was only a "part of the story". While it was (you know, with it being a quote of only a part of the article), it doesn't make much difference. Besides, I have read many more statements of this Dugas and they do make me wonder whether he was a good choice for a game like DX.

SageSavage
16th Nov 2008, 10:24
"Fast-Track to Fanaticism"
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_175/5460-Fast-Track-to-Fanaticism

I feel an urgent desire to spam the whole board with this article. Must...resist...

DXConspiracy
16th Nov 2008, 17:48
gamer0004 isn't on the team making the game.

I am pretty sure he has few "facts" there he has not made up himself for purposes of Eeyore like moaning.

If you can't confirm what he said elsewhere it's probably just what he has surmised at this point in time.

Your quote is from a much larger interview (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/23/deux-ex-3-inflammatory-hit-chasing-quote-special/) which you haven't bothered reading.

Your post is stupid.

I also read those things on other websites (e.g. autohealth), so I just quoted him. My other link to an article was broken, I would have posted it.

We will soon enough see what DX3 will be like. I hope my post is stupid and wrong, then DX3 might be a fantastic game :cool:
(just listening to the Hong Kong Streets ambiente music *g*).

Jerion
16th Nov 2008, 18:16
I think the general feeling here is that we already know all this information thoroughly and have discussed it (with little in our individual opinions changing through that discussion), and we all know that the information presented to us in the magazines was not official and is subject to change...

Point is, whenever a new dude comes on to the forums raving about how he/she just read an article containing some details about DX 3 and that it's going to suck, it doesn't go over well because we have collectively already been there (and some folks are still there :rasp: ).

So please new people, read through the discussions and contribute to the conversation before you just read a couple tidbits of info and post, "ZOMG COD4 AUTO HEAL? DX 3 IS TEH SUCK!". Okay? :)

DXConspiracy
16th Nov 2008, 19:07
You're right. But I thought one more opinion on this topic might strenghten the position of all people who think like that ;-)

Jerion
16th Nov 2008, 19:27
Fair enough. Though I'm not sure that position really needs strengthening. :p

gamer0004
17th Nov 2008, 18:18
(and some folks are still there :rasp: ).


Are you referring to me? :rasp:

Jerion
17th Nov 2008, 18:19
Are you referring to me? :rasp:

Yup. :whistle: