Dead Space

[Hell Kitty]

Unlikely. Bioshock gets heat from rabid SS2 fanboys for not being enough like it. I don't think rabid fanboys of any game make enough of a difference to publishers.

 

Eidos and Blizzard both disagree (Deus Ex 3 that became Winback and Starcraft: Ghost). Though the Winback thing supposedly resulted from the poor performance of Deus Ex: Invisible War on the market. It (IW) was a good game, though! I blame the rabid fanboys.

 

Winback? Don't you mean Project: Snowblind?

 

I enjoyed DX:IW well enough, but it was still a big disappointment. I think it was this attitude from more reasonable (and attractive) fellows like myself they were worried about, not the rantings of the more rabid nutjobs. One disappointment followed by an all action spin-off doesn't exactly do the DX name any favours.

 

Mind you, publishers probably consider all gamers who spend time on message boards rabid.

 

I'm not familiar with S:G, I thought it was cancelled for being generally poo.

[Tale]

Winback? Don't you mean Project: Snowblind?

Yes.

 

I enjoyed DX:IW well enough, but it was still a big disappointment. I think it was this attitude from more reasonable (and attractive) fellows like myself they were worried about, not the rantings of the more rabid nutjobs. One disappointment followed by an all action spin-off doesn't exactly do the DX name any favours.

I don't see what was so dissapointing about IW. It's a terrific game in its own right.

 

I'm not familiar with S:G, I thought it was cancelled for being generally poo.

The general belief seems to be it was cancelled because the rabid fanboys wanted an RTS, not a third person action-adventure. Edited September 25, 2007 by Tale

[Hell Kitty]

It's a terrific game in its own right.

 

I guess that's the problem. There was a demo of a game I played a couple of years ago that was clearly inspired in part by DX, can't remember the name. I think it was german and took place underground. Boiling Point also had elements of DX. Neither were as good as DX:IW, but they didn't have years of anticipation behind them.

 

Plus I thought it was a rather ugly game. Only the npc models and textures were decent.

 

The general belief seems to be it was cancelled because the rabid fanboys wanted an RTS, not a third person action-adventure.

 

Whose general belief, those same rabid fanboys? I know the game changed developer at some point, which isn't the sign of a game on track. I don't think rabid SC fanboys was the intended audience anyway, just as BG:DA wasn't made for hardcore D&D nuts.

[Hurlshort]

I just want to pop in and say Winback was one of the coolest games I've ever played on a console, and it perfected the whole cover system long before Gears of War ever came around.

[Pop]

The official word was that SC:G was cancelled because it "didn't meet the standards" of the company's output. Whether SC:G and Warcraft Adventures (or whatever it was called) were cancelled because the fans didn't want them or simpy because Blizzard had ventured too far out of its RTS/hack and slash comfort zone is unclear.

[Aegeri]

It (IW) was a good game, though! I blame the rabid fanboys.

Rubbish. Firstly, it took everything that made Deus Ex great and either shat all over it or dumbed it down into oblivion. For example, the horrible unified ammunition system, the lack of any consequences for anything you did (You can massacre *every single* NPC in the game without consequence), the tiny cramped level design (Compare the multiple paths, secrets and such of Liberty Island in Deus Ex to Seattle in IW) and so much more that went wrong with that game. It was sequel in name only and an inferior game to the first in every respect.

[Tale]

It (IW) was a good game, though! I blame the rabid fanboys.

Rubbish. Firstly, it took everything that made Deus Ex great and either shat all over it or dumbed it down into oblivion. For example, the horrible unified ammunition system, the lack of any consequences for anything you did (You can massacre *every single* NPC in the game without consequence), the tiny cramped level design (Compare the multiple paths, secrets and such of Liberty Island in Deus Ex to Seattle in IW) and so much more that went wrong with that game. It was sequel in name only and an inferior game to the first in every respect.

 

This is rabid fanboyism. It was a good game unless you insist on making comparisons to the first. Taken on its own and without expectations of it being like the first, it's a good game.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Tale

[Morgoth]

IW was shipped with "Deus Ex" on the box, thus people had high expectations. And it was a sequel to DX. There was JC Denton, for starters, so naturally fans are entitled to compare it to the superior predecessor.

[Tale]

IW was shipped with "Deus Ex" on the box, thus people had high expectations. And it was a sequel to DX. There was JC Denton, for starters, so naturally fans are entitled to compare it to the superior predecessor.

It's a sequel to Deux Ex, but to claim it's a bad game for being a different game is unfair and even a bit asinine. Comparisons are one thing, but comparisons as the meat of judgement is another.

[Pidesco]

IW was shipped with "Deus Ex" on the box, thus people had high expectations. And it was a sequel to DX. There was JC Denton, for starters, so naturally fans are entitled to compare it to the superior predecessor.

It's a sequel to Deux Ex, but to claim it's a bad game for being a different game is unfair and even a bit asinine. Comparisons are one thing, but comparisons as the meat of judgement is another.

 

If you think Deus Ex is a very good game, it makes sense to compare the sequel to it when pointing out its shortcomings. It's not like the two games are of different genres or something.

[Morgoth]

IW was shipped with "Deus Ex" on the box, thus people had high expectations. And it was a sequel to DX. There was JC Denton, for starters, so naturally fans are entitled to compare it to the superior predecessor.

It's a sequel to Deux Ex, but to claim it's a bad game for being a different game is unfair and even a bit asinine. Comparisons are one thing, but comparisons as the meat of judgement is another.

Being different is one thing, being crappy another. DXIW was supposed to be a sequel within the same genre, right?

[Tale]

If you think Deus Ex is a very good game, it makes sense to compare the sequel to it when pointing out its shortcomings.

 

It makes sense just the same as it makes sense to judge a game on its own merits. Deus Ex: Invisible War is judged on the merits of its predecessor. And that does not make sense. I could make comparisons between Deus Ex and Half-Life 2 since they're the same genre and come across as saying many of the same things poorly about Half-Life 2 that people say about Invisible War. That's why the comparison as judgement concept is asinine. A game does not have to be the repeat of its predecessor, nor does it have to be as good as its predecessor to be a good game any more than a completely different game has to be those things.

 

DXIW was supposed to be a sequel within the same genre, right?

If you consider that genre Action RPG, no. If you consider that genre FPS, yes. Deus Ex already stradled genre definitions, and helps show that using genres as justification for comparison judgements is silly. The games have gigantic differences in mechanics that make considering them the same genre difficult already. If you want to use broad genre classification as justification for these comparisons, then I lay claim to judging Vampire: The Masquerades by the standard of Half-Life 2. Heck, they even use the same engine, so I can use that for more justification.

 

 

The notion that being a sequel means the game is held to different standards than an unrelated game would be, that it has to be better to be considered even good, is ridiculous. That is one of the essences of fanboyism.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Tale

[Morgoth]

Why are you defending IW so vigorously? It failed on every level. Just as Aegeri said.

[Tale]

I'm defending IW because IW was a good game. The only thing Aergeri did was compare it to Deus Ex. All what he says amounts to it not being as good as Deus Ex, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

 

He sounds like Sand. There are countless games that aren't quite like their predecessors. That become more simplified. Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Elder Scrolls 3 and 4, Fallout 3 looks like it'll be quite different from Fallout 2. His entire presented reasoning against IW is retarded because a game need not have multiple paths, choice/consequence, and inventory management in order to be good games. And just because a predecessor had them does not mean the sequel has to in order to be good. These things made Deus Ex exceptional, their absence does not automatically make a game crap.

[Pidesco]

So what you're saying is that an exceptionally good game shouldn't raise our expectations regarding the games that come after it?

[Tale]

So what you're saying is that an exceptionally good game shouldn't raise our expectations regarding the games that come after it?

I'm saying you shouldn't judge a game based on your expectations.

[Morgoth]

IW on it's own was still a major disappointment. It did everything wrong, as a shooter, as an adventure, as an RPG. Whatever.

[Tale]

I thought it did particularly well as a shootah.

 

The original Deus Ex on the other hand...

Edited September 26, 2007 by Tale

[Morgoth]

I thought it did particularly well as a shootah.

"Particularly well", compared to FEAR, Half Life 2 or Bioshock, right? I mean tiny levels, stupid AI and 1 shot kills are what makes a FPS "particularly well" in your opinion?

 

The original Deus Ex on the other hand...

Was still not good in the shooting part, admitted, but had plenty ways to reach your goals, plenty of story substance, plenty of penalties for stupid acting. Et cetera.

[Sand]

I'm defending IW because IW was a good game. The only thing Aergeri did was compare it to Deus Ex. All what he says amounts to it not being as good as Deus Ex, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

 

He sounds like Sand. There are countless games that aren't quite like their predecessors. That become more simplified. Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Elder Scrolls 3 and 4, Fallout 3 looks like it'll be quite different from Fallout 2. His entire presented reasoning against IW is retarded because a game need not have multiple paths, choice/consequence, and inventory management in order to be good games. And just because a predecessor had them does not mean the sequel has to in order to be good. These things made Deus Ex exceptional, their absence does not automatically make a game crap.

 

If a game is going to be a sequel then it should have everything the previous version had and extra. Hence, why they are sequels. Good sequels are NWN1 to NWN2, BG1 to BG2, FO1 to FO2, and so on. Deus Ex to Deus Ex: Invisible War is a bad sequel pairing as well as Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. When a game is a sequel to a previous game it should have the same core design, but expanded and more well defined, not completely changed or removed.

 

If you want to completely change the core design or remove elements from it, then don't make a sequal. Make a new game instead.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Sand

[Tale]

I thought it did particularly well as a shootah.

"Particularly well", compared to FEAR, Half Life 2 or Bioshock, right? I mean tiny levels, stupid AI and 1 shot kills are what makes a FPS "particularly well" in your opinion?

 

I don't consider FEAR, Half-Life 2, or Bioshock to be the standard. Those are EXCEPTIONALLY well. Nothing is "particularly well" if those are to be the point of comparison. Hell, FEAR is my all time favorite for shooting action and it is oft criticized for its level design. I'll call Half-Life 2 and Bioshock only "pretty good" by comparing it to that. I never found the levels to be tiny, the AI to be stupid, and the only one shot kills I was aware of were headshots, which are often considered appropriate.

 

Was still not good in the shooting part, admitted, but had plenty ways to reach your goals, plenty of story substance, plenty of penalties for stupid acting. Et cetera.

But the shooting was absolutely atrocious. Nearly 1 shot kills, stupid AI, and to top it off it had a not particularly fun aim system.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Tale

[Morgoth]

I thought it did particularly well as a shootah.

"Particularly well", compared to FEAR, Half Life 2 or Bioshock, right? I mean tiny levels, stupid AI and 1 shot kills are what makes a FPS "particularly well" in your opinion?

 

I don't consider FEAR, Half-Life 2, or Bioshock to be the standard. Those are EXCEPTIONALLY well. Nothing is "particularly well" if those are to be the point of comparison. Hell, FEAR is my all time favorite for shooting action. I never found the levels to be tiny, the AI to be stupid, and the only one shot kills I was aware of were headshots, which are often considered appropriate.

 

Was still not good in the shooting part, admitted, but had plenty ways to reach your goals, plenty of story substance, plenty of penalties for stupid acting. Et cetera.

But the shooting was absolutely atrocious. Nearly 1 shot kills, stupid AI, and to top it off it had a not particularly fun aim system.

 

1 shot kills? Are we talking about IW suddenly? Unless you had the sniper rifle, I needed to bang half an SMG magazine to take down a standard MJ12 merc.

[Tale]

Two shots from my pistol to the head is all it took to take down most soldiers. If you put enough skills in pistol, it ends up only taking one shot to the head. The one shot headshots are the same one shot kills that IW has.

 

Let's not forget the Dragoon's Tooth. One hit kill against ANYBODY. I killed that guy from FEMA in one swing of that puppy my first playthrough of the game. He was supposed to be a boss like character. Anna Navara was easy too. Gunther? Didn't even need to fire one shot.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Tale

[Morgoth]

I give up you wicked rabbit! Have it your way, I don't want to argue about this chicken**** topic anymore.

[Sand]

Easy kills is a hallmark of bad design.