The only thing that would accomplish is engraging the console crowd. As it is, the message is quite subtle.
The only thing that would accomplish is engraging the console crowd. As it is, the message is quite subtle.
Oh joy, another one of Kieron's trademark apologist screeds. What fun.
Zy: I did say that there's more than enough reason to fear and hope for the game in the actual full feature. I actually stayed well clear of what I actually think the game's going to be like, because that's neither here nor there.**
In this case, my actual ire is at my peers*. Lobbing a quote like that out for hits is rubbish journalism.
*I totally understand why a fan of DX would get angry. That's why I specifically said I disagreed with Rene saying he wish people researched more before getting angry. The point of the the press is to try and present as balanced a picture as possible so people can make up their own minds off that piece alone. But a story with that quote... well, the only possible response is to get angry. Which doesn't help anyone, except people getting paid for per-click.
**If you ask, I think they've got a really hard job and I wish them luck. I think making a decent DX game is probably the hardest job in Western Games Development, and pulling it off would be pretty much miraculous. But I'm not going to write it off until I see more.
Based on experience, the press will most probably say Deus Ex 3 is a fantastic game, the original fans will say it's utter shit. As for me, I will probably take the time to try the demo, even if things like auto-healing are still there, but I won't buy a game simply to find out if it's good or not (I didn't buy fallout 3 and I have no intention to). If there is no demo, I will buy the game only if almost everyone here say it's better than Invisible War.
I was going to post this here a week or so ago when it first broke, but i figured someone beat me to the punch and stuck it in the generic DX3 thread hanging about these parts. Was wrong I guess.
The thing that galls me is the sheer pretentiousness of companies these days, thinking they have the muster to take a much-lauded and favorite series and turn its name in their favor, just to sell their own design.
See, the problem is this: The publishers refuse to publish anything that steps outside of the norm in the industry today. Unless it has proven itself in some way, or you are a name like John Carmack, you can pretty much take your idea and stuff it. Hence why we have companies like Rare taking the B&K series and turning it into a completely different game with the B&K name stamped on it.
Hence why we have Eidos montreal doing completely insane things with DX3. (Aside: This is a prequel? I sure as hell couldn't rip people through walls using augs in DX1 or (shudder) DX2, so what hell is going on here, hmm?).
For those of you who don't know (i post rarely) I am getting a degree in game design and have been fiddling with it for about half a decade. Interestingly, neither I nor my fellow classmates can figure out what is so very, very wrong with the industry these days. As designers ourselves, we cannot come even close to justifying most of the decisions made in modern games, its as if the designers are so closeted in their own little worlds that nothing but their ideas on paper matters any more.
The more likely reason, however, is the one above. We have some really talented designers who are chafing at the bit to make their own radical new games and bend the rules for them, but the corporate vice of the publishers and development houses is forcing them to toe the line of generic crap that they trust because its formula has sold for two decades. So the designers take the only outlet they can: Take an established name and rape it with their own design till a zombie baby of both is born to universal distaste. Sadly, the players are the ones that suffer.
Its 4 am and I haven't slept since 5 am yesterday. Best i just go back to homework now. Hopefully that enlightened you as to why DX3 and pretty much every game for the next several years is going to make you cry.
changing his skin colour while wearing clothes, I can pretty much accept that this Adam might have had his skeleton consolidated to support a mechanical arm with the strength of a high-powered jackhammer. The issue with what we know about augs, at least, isn't one of technical veracity or continuity, as some allowances must be made for both "sci-fi" as well as the evolution of game tech. The problem is that the augs that we've been told about seem more like flashy action-oriented superhero powers, rather than valid military developments to fit in the game's world context.
I don't expect Deus Ex 3 to be a revelation. I'm sure it won't come anywhere near the stunning experience that the first title was for me back in 2000. But that doesn't mean it can't be a good game in its own right. And the little information we have so far, even coupled with the pessimism characteristic of the original's fans, myself included, is not enough to state that DX3 will necessarily "make you cry". Just keep your expectations in check and wait for when we get closer to the release date, at least.
Ah, I was indeed unclear. The only justification that I and my compatriots can determine for this madness is the one I mentioned in my prior post: that the developers are not permitted to try anything new via the risk of a new IP and thus need the name of an established series to do it.
Granted, there are rare exceptions, but if you look on the store shelves by far the majority of games are a mere repackaging of previous titles, or completely new and radical designs with a familiar title slapped on them to sell.
I should refrain from writing on this little sleep.
Last edited by thiefinthedark; 5th Nov 2008 at 11:55.
I really wish more people would pay attention to the proverb that "if you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one."
Last edited by The_Raven; 5th Nov 2008 at 13:52.
[But ZB has already told this in other words...]
Well, i am really interested what do you mean exactly under these words. Probably i misunderstood it... However for me personally, nearly the whole DX1 was memorable, but i'm just a fan....
My major problems are related to two other aspects of the game (based on the released infos):
-Graphical stilisation seems to tend to an Invisible War/Bioshock way (Neorenaissance enterieurs, wierd NPC clothing fashions), however DX3 is a prequel, and DX1's stilization was quite a consolidated one, mainly based on nowadays environments etc.
-In DX3's narrrative age, there are only Mechanical augmentation but it seems to me that we will see the strangest augmentations ever in DX universe. I mean how can someone upgrades itself mechanically to be able to walking through walls (???) and so on...
[Sorry, thiefinthedark has indicated this problem already...]
These seems to be really controversary for me to a DX1 prequel...
So it's true that it's real hard to develop a DX game, but it's the hardest when it's a prequel, because you should reamin in the context of an universe alredy created while you trying to come up with new features...
(In my opinion, the best decision for DX3's narrative setting would be a spin off. Ok, i know it's not a question actually...)
[Sorry for possible repetitions, i wrote this post after reading Renés one... and sorry for spelling too! ]
Last edited by Blaze; 6th Nov 2008 at 09:13.
So, finally we're able to read the Edge article online.
Can't say that after reading it, that it's allayed my fears about how the game will turn out.
I noticed that the way Dugas described the third-person context switching, sounds a lot like V.A.T.S. from Fallout 3. Considering the DX3 team sent a cake to Bethesda as a message to show how much they "admired" their work, it sounds to me like they're going to use Fallout 3 as an inspiration. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.
Sounds like a skills system is out.Purists may also be alarmed to hear about the changes to the combat, now going for a straightforward approach to aiming, unimpeded by the statistically represented competencies of your character. “The shooting aspect of Deus Ex was very weak in my opinion,” says Dugas. “If you were precise it wasn’t necessarily because you were a good player, but because your stats were boosted.”
While you may think that being a good player might entail deciding which stats to boost, Dugas does make a fair point regarding the degree with which this frustrated your intentions: we remember quite a few galling instances when JC Denton, a trained anti-terrorism agent and burgeoning superhuman, would miss at near point-blank range thanks to an overt deference to the numbers.
Nonetheless, Dugas says that the ability to hone your play-style remains in the ability to upgrade the guns, and yourself, through augmentations, supporting the moment-to-moment decisions between combat, stealth, hacking or social.
Oh great, so they're going to break the immersion in order to show off the fancy animations they come up with.[Dugas]“In the first game, the augmentations were a bunch of stat-boosters. They’d make you stronger perhaps, but not much would change on the screen – it was subtle and not very rewarding. That’s something we wanted to change a bit. Obviously there will be augmentations that are cerebral and less spectacular – but we’ll have a lot of physical augmentations that will allow you to pull off tricks that no ordinary human could. For those sequences we’ll switch contextually to a thirdperson camera view so you’ll see clearly what your character is able to achieve.”
I was not a huge fan of the plasmids in Bioshock which were more about showing off effects than giving you gameplay choices. But at least they were still first person. This quote makes it sound like DX3 augs are going to be like plasmids rendered 3rd person.
If that plus weapon upgrades are the only forms of character development in the game, it's no more action/RPG than Bioshock was.
Now that I've seen the article, I don't see why Kieron Gillen thinks the quote used in the teaser was taken out of context. If anything, reading the quote in context makes it sound even worse!In keeping with this increased blockbuster bent, Eidos Montreal is adding boss fights and creating a greater variation in pace, citing Deus Ex as ‘kind of slow’. “There weren’t enough exciting, memorable moments,” says Dugas. “It was aimed more towards a simulation rather than a game experience.”
And I wonder what they have in mind re: boss fights. In DX and IW, the boss fights were with the other augmented agents. If Dugas says they're "adding" boss fights, I guess that means something different.
I dunno. Their critical attitude doesn't seem very healthy to me.The team at Eidos Montreal certainly knows the previous games well, and has a healthily critical attitude to them; far from being sacrilegious, reassessing the value of such a hallowed title provides an essential perspective that might otherwise be stymied in nostalgia.
I hate to say it, but this game is starting to sound more and more like Bioshock only less ambitious.
EDIT: Heywood hit the nail right on the head, this is exactly like BioShock, only without the ambition and excitement. Just as in SS2, the skills system is being destroyed along with the apparent simplification of ... everything else. Still, I'm not totally pessimistic, especially since the skills system wasn't a major factor in Deus Ex. Perhaps there's something good about Eidos' honesty (as opposed to the blatant denial and dishonesty in the early interviews/articles on BioShock).
And yeah, Kieron Gillen was totally wrong, as he usually is.
Last edited by Silkworm; 10th Nov 2008 at 13:35.
Rename the game as Project Snowblind 2, please.
I can see the bullet points on the box now:
- Super Awesoma Boss Fights tm
- FPS/RPG Without the RPG
- Pointless Third Person Quicktime Events
- Replace Your Hands with Guns, Hurrrr
- From the Makers of Far Cry Instincts
NOTE: I'm a pessimist by nature, and given the state of the union these days, probably a good thing to be from the sounds of it
Last edited by The_Raven; 10th Nov 2008 at 14:06.
hey stop guys
is it just me or does it really sound sorta ridiculous:
BOSS FIGHTS IN DEUS EX???
now i'm properly excited about this game of no doubt
There were boss fights in Deus Ex, so why wouldn't there be boss fights in Deus Ex 3?
I would call it anything but boss fights
Let's see... fights with unique characters, who are more resilient than the usual cannon fodder and have some of the best weapons in the game, also special abilities. You usually fight them one-on-one, in set pieces.
No, not boss fights at all.
Boss fight looks like this:
Or like this:
But this -
- is no way a boss fight. I'd call it a critically important meeting with one of the key characters in a role playing game. Which, unfortunately, ultimately ends up as a bloody mess, but this is a script requirement.
If you call it a boss fight as we know it from shooters and arcade games, why don't you name, say, encountering a Haunt in Thief 1's Down In The Bonehoard a boss fight? Or Brother Cavador in Thief 2's Kidnap is indeed a boss.
The first encounter with Revolver Ocelot in Metal Gear Solid is a critically important meeting with one of the key characters in a sealth/action game. Which, unfortunately, ultimately ends up as a bloody mess, but this is a script requirement.
Finding the monstrous Melchiah in Soul Reaver is a critically important meeting with one of the key characters in an action/adventure game. Which, unfortunately, ultimately ends up as a bloody mess, but this is a script requirement.
Doesn't mean they're not bosses.
As for your Thief examples, the Haunt is not a boss since it's not unique. Unique to that level, yes, but not to the game. Cavador is also not a boss. You don't fight him, do you?