Deus Ex 3

[Hell Kitty]

Well at least one person loves it already

 

Unless it doesn't let me pick up chairs, then it can go **** itself.

[Malcador]

Next iteration.

[Majek]

i just want my crossbow.

[mkreku]

I just want to be able to blow my legs off so I'm forced to crawl around one of those 2 hour levels on my knuckles. True story.

[Slowtrain]

Well at least one person loves it already

 

Unless it doesn't let me pick up chairs, then it can go **** itself.

 

 

I was joking about the trashcans on the tables. :/

 

Deus Ex was a ****ed up and broken and simplistic game on a lot of levels. I welcome changes.

[Jaesun]

Well at least one person loves it already

 

Unless it doesn't let me pick up chairs, then it can go **** itself.

 

I'm not going to be buying this, unless you can jump on someone

[Raithe]

I'm not going to be buying this, unless you can jump on someone

[Meshugger]

Man, you people are trying way too hard to be negative. You're talking about new ideas when complaining that part of this new game isn't the same as the old game.

 

I find it a legitimate concern that the focus on DXHR is "about the same as DX1, but a little less of this and that". That's playing safe and not pushing boundries. What new features to the gameplay are there? What is the scope? Certainly nothing to raise your eyebrow about. That doesn't mean that it is not going to suck, far from it. But it will not be a stepping stone to the genre as the first one was either. Mediocrity or banality should never be accepted.

 

Explain what use these items had:

 

 

Besides doing stupid stuff like that I mean.

 

'Stupid stuff' was not up to the designer to choose, it was up to the player. I can give some examples: 1) You can build up a barricade in case of Manderlay attacking you, or any other NPC for that matter. 2) You can use them to hide from guards or bots. 3) You can build a bridge out of 'stupid stuff' in order to cross a passage that was too wide before.

 

It might be stupid stuff for you, but that is not the point. The point is that each and every player should be allowed to judge by themselves on what is stupid or not. That was the way it was in DX1. Why not build upon that foundation instead and expand? Now, the only thing that i see is restriction.

[Raithe]

Man, you people are trying way too hard to be negative. You're talking about new ideas when complaining that part of this new game isn't the same as the old game.

 

I find it a legitimate concern that the focus on DXHR is "about the same as DX1, but a little less of this and that". That's playing safe and not pushing boundries. What new features to the gameplay are there? What is the scope? Certainly nothing to raise your eyebrow about. That doesn't mean that it is not going to suck, far from it. But it will not be a stepping stone to the genre as the first one was either. Mediocrity or banality should never be accepted.

 

One : The hacking system, that's advanced beyond the "one button click / use multitools". Now there's an actual system you can game against, and depending on how you play it, can potentially open up other rewards if you're willing to risk the alarm being raised.

 

Two: The 'social' aspect, that's supposed to be much more advanced. Not sure how well it'll come across, but apparently reading "body language" and suchlike to figure out what's the best method in persuading them to your side.

 

Two areas that should have significant impact on how you play the game, and both taking advances that could potentially go horribly wrong.

[Tel Aviv]

The GUI looks a little intrusive and I have this niggling dislike of the cut to black before performing a takedown.

 

Nitpickery aside, it's looks impressive. I'm pumped!

[entrerix]

i really feel like Hell Kitty's post is being under appreciated. It was both amusing, and enlightening.

 

All I really care about at this point are

1) level design

2) reactivity to the player/ choice and consequence

 

All the other stuff, crap like highlighting, being able to pick up plants, the color scheme etc etc is minor and mostly irrelevant.

 

If this game has 1 and 2 of the same caliber as deus ex, then it will be more than good enough for me.

[Slowtrain]

i really feel like Hell Kitty's post is being under appreciated. It was both amusing, and enlightening.

 

All I really care about at this point are

1) level design

2) reactivity to the player/ choice and consequence

 

All the other stuff, crap like highlighting, being able to pick up plants, the color scheme etc etc is minor and mostly irrelevant.

 

If this game has 1 and 2 of the same caliber as deus ex, then it will be more than good enough for me.

 

 

DX had little significant reactivity to player choice.

 

Even actions that seemed signifcant on the surface such as killing Anna on the plane and letting Lebedev go didn't alter the gameplay or narrative flow in any meaningful way.

 

DX has an undeserved rep for being strong in reactivity and consequnces when in fact it wasn't.

 

DX great strength was giving people large levels to explore and allowing players to come up with clever ways to combine items, skills, and augs to achieve their opjectives.

 

If DX:HR has ANY signifcant choice and consequence it will be a step up from DX.

 

edit: One of the reasons IW failed was because it removed skills, dumbed down items and augs, and had smaller less complex levels, but didn't add anything, such as meaningful c&C, to replace the loss.

 

Hopefully HR will not make same mistake.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Slowtrain

[Tale]

DX had little significant reactivity to player choice.

 

Even actions that seemed signifcant on the surface such as killing Anna on the plane and letting Lebedev go didn't alter the gameplay or narrative flow in any meaningful way.

I don't ask for meaning. I just ask to be given the choice to try. That often feels like asking a lot.

 

Meaningful reactivity to my attempts is a very nice thing. But I ask for that second.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Tale

[Raithe]

DX had little significant reactivity to player choice.

 

Even actions that seemed signifcant on the surface such as killing Anna on the plane and letting Lebedev go didn't alter the gameplay or narrative flow in any meaningful way.

 

DX has an undeserved rep for being strong in reactivity and consequnces when in fact it wasn't.

 

DX great strength was giving people large levels to explore and allowing players to come up with clever ways to combine items, skills, and augs to achieve their opjectives.

 

If DX:HR has ANY signifcant choice and consequence it will be a step up from DX.

 

edit: One of the reasons IW failed was because it removed skills, dumbed down items and augs, and had smaller less complex levels, but didn't add anything, such as meaningful c&C, to replace the loss.

 

Hopefully HR will not make same mistake.

 

The interesting question being.. if a game makes you feel like it has c&c, does it matter whether it in fact does or not?

[Slowtrain]

The interesting question being.. if a game makes you feel like it has c&c, does it matter whether it in fact does or not?

 

 

It is an interesting question actually. Fake C&C vs genuine C&C. Genuinue C&C obviously being very rare and pretty difficult to do.

 

I would have liked to have seen saving Lebedev actually SAVE LEBEDEV and open up some new avenue or resource in upcoming missions.

 

Likewise, saving Paul gives me the warm fuzzies but doesn't actually change the narrative or gameplay in any meaningful.

 

I find it a bit dishonest, in a narrative sense.

[Tale]

I didn't even realize you could save Paul the first time.

 

Then I play Invisible War and "what the heck is Paul doing here?!"

[Slowtrain]

I didn't even realize you could save Paul the first time.

 

 

I didn't either.

 

When on a subsequent playthrough I discovered that by staying and fighting MJ12 at the hotel, whihc I just did to see what would happen, it was pretty cool to find out that Paul lived.

 

And then it was pretty disappointing to find that nothing much changed afterwards.

 

I'm not really sure how I feel on the subject. Certainly the appearance of C&C, even fake C&C, makes a decision in the moment more interesting, but if nothing significant comes of the choice then maybe its worse than not making a decision at all.

[Hell Kitty]

I was joking about the trashcans on the tables. :/

 

I never thought otherwise.

 

Also, I saved Paul the first time around, never realising it was even possible that he could die.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Hell Kitty

[Guest Slinky]

I would have liked to have seen saving Lebedev actually SAVE LEBEDEV and open up some new avenue or resource in upcoming missions.

I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to do something like that, but couldn't.

 

As far as I know, they wanted to allow players to stay in UNATCO if they wanted, but the good old money/time factor didn't allow them to do that.

[Raithe]

Although being able to pile all the crap in Paul's apartment in front of the door did help you keep him alive...

[Tale]

if nothing significant comes of the choice then maybe its worse than not making a decision at all.

It's really really not. A large part of choices is to express your character. Not simply to get his ends. The means and the ends can be different.

[Slowtrain]

if nothing significant comes of the choice then maybe its worse than not making a decision at all.

It's really really not. A large part of choices is to express your character. Not simply to get his ends. The means and the ends can be different.

 

 

Hmmm.

 

If expressing your character results in no significant changes from the gameworld does that expression have value?

 

I'm not saying that they have to be good changes; they could be negative or punitive.

 

The downside being that having to spend dev time implementing false choice is dev time that could be spent elsewhere. False choice doesn't take as much time and effort as real choice, but it c oulc be argued that false choice has significantly less value.

 

I was joking about the trashcans on the tables. :/

 

I never thought otherwise.

 

 

 

OK. I just wanted to make sure.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Slowtrain

[entrerix]

I didn't even realize you could save Paul the first time.

 

 

I didn't either.

 

When on a subsequent playthrough I discovered that by staying and fighting MJ12 at the hotel, whihc I just did to see what would happen, it was pretty cool to find out that Paul lived.

 

And then it was pretty disappointing to find that nothing much changed afterwards.

 

I'm not really sure how I feel on the subject. Certainly the appearance of C&C, even fake C&C, makes a decision in the moment more interesting, but if nothing significant comes of the choice then maybe its worse than not making a decision at all.

 

 

I feel like in the case of Deus Ex it mattered that you could save paul, it didnt have any real game changing effect, no different missions later on etc, but it still gives a different feel to the game that the moment where you decide to save paul isn't a Yes No decision with an npc standing waiting to here your response. It was a reactive moment, the game tells you to run and you can choose to stay and fight and the game SUPPORTS that decision! That's just awesome. Thats as awesome as being told in new vegas that you MUST kill the brother hood, and instead working hard to save them and actually being able to do so. It's a more genuine C&C than the binary choices offered in dialogue that directly lead to a different quest because its more organic.

 

now the BEST C&C would be that same organic type of decision making, but not just supported by the game acknowledging what you did, but also opening up new paths and or missions.

 

that was all somewhat confused probably, but i hope people grasp my intent.

[Tale]

if nothing significant comes of the choice then maybe its worse than not making a decision at all.

It's really really not. A large part of choices is to express your character. Not simply to get his ends. The means and the ends can be different.

 

 

Hmmm.

 

If expressing your character results in no significant changes from the gameworld does that expression have value?

 

I'm not saying that they have to be good changes; they could be negative or punitive.

 

The downside being that having to spend dev time implementing false choice is dev time that could be spent elsewhere. False choice doesn't take as much time and effort as real choice, but it c oulc be argued that false choice has significantly less value.

Yes, that expression has value. Because arbitrarily denying it simply makes the player feel impotent. It is a point of frustration and aggravation for your players. And you will lose them.

 

Sometimes it can even feel as if the game is actively mocking you by denying obvious choices. Players won't stand for it.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Tale

[Malcador]

Well, playing dressup worked for the FO3 crowd.