I've played the leaked beta (which I don't feel the least bit bad about, since I've already pre-ordered the special edition of the game), and I am very confident in saying that Eidos has finally done the impossible and surpassed the original game in nearly every respect. The gameplay is completely refined and polished (and so much fun to play, which is somewhat of a new concept for the series), opportunities for player choice completely permeate the game (you can do anything, and as long as you don't die, the game will continue and adapt to your actions), the leveling is completely esoteric and streamlined in a way that makes every single upgrade point define your playing experience, the artistic direction is brilliantly executed, the sound design and voice acting are some of the best I've ever heard, the soundtrack is nearly unmatched in gaming, the storyline has a much stronger basis in near-future technology and reality than the previous entries in the series (and it's much more emotionally charged as a result, though it doesn't lose it's 'web of conspiracy' appeal in the process), and it has an astounding level of detail poured into the most minor aspects of the game which make it seem like a credible world.
Oh, and the marketing campaign is fantastic, as you can see (on par with Hollywood, which I've certainly never seen before).
Shortly put, if you have even the slightest interest in first person shooters or RPGs, or if you value player choice and input to the smallest degree, you need to play this game. Thankfully, it comes out on August 23rd (a day before my birthday). If you have any adoration for the first Deus Ex, this is the game you've been waiting 11 years for. However, if you're a fan of games like Mass Effect 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, The Witcher 2, Far Cry, or anything similar, this should definitely be a pre-order or a day-one purchase for you.
I have been waiting for this game since it was announced. I am absolutely stoked to get this!
Deus Ex was one of those genre defining games for computer gaming that just set the bar so high. It took a look at FPS's (similar to what Half Life did) and said "No, you don't have to have an FPS just be something where you run around and blast people away without a reason or direction, STORY MATTERS!!!" Number 2 unfortunately fell short of its predecessor, but it looks like this will absolutely redeem the series.
The newest gameplay teaser floored me for the 23rd!!!
Looks pretty good, actually substancially better than I expected.
I wasnt the biggest fan of the original two, I felt that there were unpolished, really cool, but unpolished.
What Deus Ex lacked in polish it made up for in detail and intrigue. I have never played a more interesting game, and if DXH can even match that I'll love it. I mean, look at the polish on that!
The game play is quite solid, with none of the feeling of ineptitude which was so prevalent in the early stages of the first game. Your cyborg super-soldier actually knows how to fire a gun and hit something he happened to be aiming at, for example. Stealth is definitely the focus, though the guns-blazing approach is a legitimate option because this game actually feels like an FPS-RPG rather than an RPG with the mouse bound to attack. There were some issues with sound detection and the AI (it seemed too sensitive in many cases) in the leaked version, but I'm confident they will have been ironed out; though they weren't a huge issue to begin with.
As already stated, the art design is excellent, blending film noire, Mass Effect, and a little AC2/B Renaissance.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:What Deus Ex lacked in polish it made up for in detail and intrigue. I have never played a more interesting game, and if DXH can even match that I'll love it. I mean, look at the polish on that!
Deus Ex 2 sucked so hard I wanted to hurt myself.
If detail and intrigue are what you're looking for, Human Revolution delivers in spades. There is a ton of content that serves to make the world feel believable, and it also contributes to the overall storyline in most cases (though you won't realize it at first). Adam's personal quest for vengeance adds more of a driving force to the main storyline (and there's also a lot of emotional and philosophical elements that didn't really exist in the first game), yet the overall storyline retains the classic Deus Ex feel of in-depth conspiracy and grey morality.
Invisible War failed to live up to the first game, but compared to most games of it's time, it was still miles ahead of all of them. The only reason people were disappointed by it was because the original Deus Ex was so thoroughly amazing.
kenshin620 wrote:Everyone on /v/ basically says this is the game that is going to save gaming. No idea what that meant though
I think the most important aspect of Deus Ex is the fact that there are no restrictions on anything (if you want to do something within the limitations of Adam's abilities, you can; the game will never stop you). You can actually use real-world logic to solve any problem (instead of videogame logic), because the developers had the foresight to think of everything the player may end up doing during the game. It's very jarring to realize this, because games generally punish you or prevent you from thinking outside the box (and insult your intelligence in the process), but Deus Ex: Human Revolution fully encourages it, and actually rewards you for it.
It's been 11 years since a game with this much freedom and detail has come out. Unfortunately, all of the ideas driving the first game never really made their way into the mainstream (even though they definitely should have). Hopefully, with as much polish and artistic merit as this game has, it will show developers everywhere that this is how you make a fething videogame.
dogma wrote:The game play is quite solid, with none of the feeling of ineptitude which was so prevalent in the early stages of the first game. Your cyborg super-soldier actually knows how to fire a gun and hit something he happened to be aiming at, for example. Stealth is definitely the focus, though the guns-blazing approach is a legitimate option because this game actually feels like an FPS-RPG rather than an RPG with the mouse bound to attack.
This may sound stupid, but the problem with Adam being so competent is that it no longer encourages resourcefulness or experimentation. Even though it's still entirely possible to use any means necessary to defeat your enemies (and this experimentation is still just as fun as ever), most people accustomed to traditional shooters may just play through the whole game guns blazing because they won't realize there's so much more to it than that. However, it is a testament to the game's design that you can now play through the entire game as an action FPS (and it still ends up being more enjoyable than most games that focus on this entirely).
I do notice that they hardly give you any ammo (just like the first game), though, so players may have to use their ingenuity to squeeze their way out of a tight spot quite a few times during the game, and then the possibilities will really open up to them once they realize what they can do.
dogma wrote:As already stated, the art design is excellent, blending film noire, Mass Effect, and a little AC2/B Renaissance.
The only problem I have with the art design is that it's a bit incogruous with the first game (the technology seems way more advanced in most cases, though a lot of this can be attributed to the difficulty of presenting detail with the original Unreal Engine). However, I saw an interview with the lead art designer that explained that there will be a sort of collapse during the game that will plunge the world into the darkness found in the first game. I'm satisfied with this.
Not to say that the art design of the original game was anywhere near this brilliant, I just need something to tie the two games together artistically. Progression seems a little backwards, is all.
Chrysaor686 wrote:
This may sound stupid, but the problem with Adam being so competent is that it no longer encourages resourcefulness or experimentation. Even though it's still entirely possible to use any means necessary to defeat your enemies (and this experimentation is still just as fun as ever), most people accustomed to traditional shooters may just play through the whole game guns blazing because they won't realize there's so much more to it than that. However, it is a testament to the game's design that you can now play through the entire game as an action FPS (and it still ends up being more enjoyable than most games that focus on this entirely).
If experimentation and resourcefulness are good things, then why do they need to be encouraged? Sure, games generally are better when they force trial and error situations, but in the real world experimentation is generally not all that useful when death is the consequence, and resourcefulness tends to be a matter of finding the one thing that will work given the absence of obvious alternatives. The real world encourages the use of tried-and-true solutions, and generally rewards resourcefulness only situations where the challenge is either novel, or desperate. This is fine because the real world is almost always engaging due to the inability of most people to escape it without suffering (few people want to die), but games are easy to escape; we just turn them off. This isn't a huge deal if the game doesn't need to be immersive, but most people will tell you that they prefer games which grab them, and pull them into the world as presented (at least games that have stories). This presents a problem for game designers, as they are being asked to create a form of entertainment which is both immersive, essentially believable, and which fundamentally works against the reward system we have come to expect from reality.
I actually rather like DEH's approach to the problem solving issue in that they don't shy away from any particular solution, and instead present them all as equally viable, which leaves the choice of capacity up the whim of the player. In essence, it asks you to set your own hard limits, and then lets you go about your business with a sliding difficulty scale.
dogma wrote:If experimentation and resourcefulness are good things, then why do they need to be encouraged? Sure, games generally are better when they force trial and error situations, but in the real world experimentation is generally not all that useful when death is the consequence, and resourcefulness tends to be a matter of finding the one thing that will work given the absence of obvious alternatives. The real world encourages the use of tried-and-true solutions, and generally rewards resourcefulness only situations where the challenge is either novel, or desperate. This is fine because the real world is almost always engaging due to the inability of most people to escape it without suffering (few people want to die), but games are easy to escape; we just turn them off. This isn't a huge deal if the game doesn't need to be immersive, but most people will tell you that they prefer games which grab them, and pull them into the world as presented (at least games that have stories). This presents a problem for game designers, as they are being asked to create a form of entertainment which is both immersive, essentially believable, and which fundamentally works against the reward system we have come to expect from reality.
I actually rather like DEH's approach to the problem solving issue in that they don't shy away from any particular solution, and instead present them all as equally viable, which leaves the choice of capacity up the whim of the player. In essence, it asks you to set your own hard limits, and then lets you go about your business with a sliding difficulty scale.
While this is a good point, the original Deus Ex was filled with moments of desperation. You really had to use your intelligence to formulate a strategy and use the environment to your advantage during split-second life-or-death decisions. By the time you were actually competent at combat, you had learned to apply this sort of ingenuity to every facet of the game (including actions that could profoundly change the storyline).
I foresee a lot of people who weren't fans of the original will just play this as a standard cover shooter (or even a standard stealth game), and then they will denounce it as average because they're never really expected to test the limits of what they can do in order to survive. Essentially, a lot of people could mistake failure with 'Oh, I just need to shoot better', instead of 'Hm...what can I use for a different approach this time?' While that's certainly still viable, a lot of the genius of this game will fly right over people's heads, instead of presenting itself front-and-center.
Thankfully, the enemy AI is really, really good, and it's really difficult to take on numerous enemies all swarming towards you at once with how easily Adam can die and how light his ammo reserve usually is (this can also lead to desperation), so I guess we'll see how most people end up receiving the game.
The fact that Jensen is a mechanically augmented cyborg is all most people need to suspend their disbelief, and the fact that it's a videogame means that the penalty isn't very high if you decide to try something new and die in the process. When your split-second planning rewards you with victory, it is immensely satisfying.
Chrysaor686 wrote:
While this is a good point, the original Deus Ex was filled with moments of desperation. You really had to use your intelligence to formulate a strategy and use the environment to your advantage during split-second life-or-death decisions. By the time you were actually competent at combat, you had learned to apply this sort of ingenuity to every facet of the game (including actions that could profoundly change the storyline).
See, I never experienced that. When I played the game I found that it heavily encouraged stealth, to the point of combat being impossible in the early game. I've always felt that, in gaming, placing an emphasis on stealth is mistaken for freedom of choice, and that Deus Ex was a prime example of this. In fact, were it not for the terrible map design, I would say IW offered the player more choice in terms of problem solving.
Keep in mind that using cover and shooting enemies is a form of problem solving.
Chrysaor686 wrote:
I foresee a lot of people who weren't fans of the original will just play this as a standard cover shooter (or even a standard stealth game), and then they will denounce it as average because they're never really expected to test the limits of what they can do in order to survive. Essentially, a lot of people could mistake failure with 'Oh, I just need to shoot better', instead of 'Hm...what can I use for a different approach this time?' While that's certainly still viable, a lot of the genius of this game will fly right over people's heads, instead of presenting itself front-and-center.
See, I feel like Deus Ex did the same thing, but instead sold itself as a stealth/action game instead of as a cover shooter. I think it got away with this because the lack of stealth/action games, and cyber-punk title to a lesser extent, made people think critically about it. IW tried to rectify this, but ended up failing because it is really, really hard to create a game that is, for lack of a phrase, a "comprehensive first-person experience" and neither the developers, nor the producers, really seemed to understand that. It was a case of being overambitious. DEH is probably a little overambitious, and will fail in some respects, you're pointing out one of them, but its much, much larger budget will cover many flaws.
Chrysaor686 wrote:
Thankfully, the enemy AI is really, really good, and it's really difficult to take on numerous enemies all swarming towards you at once with how easily Adam can die and how light his ammo reserve usually is (this can also lead to desperation), so I guess we'll see how most people end up receiving the game.
See, I didn't experience that either. However, without patting myself on the back too much, I've found that I'm better than average at FPS games in general, and cover shooters in particular (a life of sports has lead to good reflexes and hand-eye coordination, its why so many frat boys are good at Halo); so I'm not necessarily the best judge.
Chrysaor686 wrote:
The fact that Jensen is a mechanically augmented cyborg is all most people need to suspend their disbelief, and the fact that it's a videogame means that the penalty isn't very high if you decide to try something new and die in the process. When your split-second planning rewards you with victory, it is immensely satisfying.
No doubt, its why I used to love Tribes, and why I'm excited for Tribes: Ascend.
I wonder if there is a third person zoom out cam for it , you know like those that they put on Fallout newer series and the Elder Scroll. I am okay with FPS though
dogma wrote:See, I never experienced that. When I played the game I found that it heavily encouraged stealth, to the point of combat being impossible in the early game. I've always felt that, in gaming, placing an emphasis on stealth is mistaken for freedom of choice, and that Deus Ex was a prime example of this. In fact, were it not for the terrible map design, I would say IW offered the player more choice in terms of problem solving.
Keep in mind that using cover and shooting enemies is a form of problem solving.
It's not so much the fact that it was a stealth game (Hell, go Advanced in Pistols and take the GEP gun and you'll be kicking ass and taking names at the very start, with little need for stealth at all; if you saw it as simply a stealth-centric game, then that's just the way you chose to play). It's the fact that it gave you a lot of different ways to approach your objective, and a lot of the objects in the game world and your inventory could have a profound effect on how the game played out. The longer you played, the more options you had, due to your growing inventory and augmentations. No other game really had enough detail to reward creativity like Deus Ex did, and even recent games are lacking this amount of player input.
However, player choice wasn't constricted to level design and character builds. If you only played the game once, chances are that you only heard about 25% of the dialogue (most of which is mandatory). There are a lot of different ways to affect the storyline and the way that characters react to you (Ion Storm covered every possibility, and there was literally nothing that the game prevented you from doing, though you were always given a consequence for even your most minor decisions). You see a result for nearly every one of your actions, and people are still discovering new options within the game to this day. Deus Ex is the pinnacle of interactive storytelling, and none of your choices are irrelevant. There is a very good reason why this is still the favorite game of thousands of people. You can no longer chalk it up to a lack of stealth-centric games or similar settings.
The only games that come close to being nearly as interactive as Deus Ex are text adventures, and you can hardly call those games in this day and age.
I don't expect Human Revolution to have quite this much dynamic storyline content, but it would be nice to be able to make at least a few pivotal decisions that aren't just constricted to two branching options (I have seen a few so far, which is good, but I'm hoping there are some which I didn't even notice). One of the cool things about the decisions in Deus Ex is that a lot of the time, you ddn't even realize you were making them until you played through the game again and tried to deviate from your previous playthrough (your options were never really layed out before you, and were often defined through real-time gameplay). I definitely want more of that.
dogma wrote:See, I didn't experience that either. However, without patting myself on the back too much, I've found that I'm better than average at FPS games in general, and cover shooters in particular (a life of sports has lead to good reflexes and hand-eye coordination, its why so many frat boys are good at Halo); so I'm not necessarily the best judge.
Good for you. If I were using a mouse and keyboard setup, I would be much better at headshotting the opposition, but I prefer a 360 controller for all of the other controls (though I've never been that good at crosshair movement with a controller). I also like the little bit of extra challenge, because it forces me to think instead of just shoot.
However, if you didn't notice how much better the AI was than most other triple-a titles out there, you must be blind. There's always 'Deus Ex' difficulty if you feel the need for it.
Retrias wrote:I wonder if there is a third person zoom out cam for it , you know like those that they put on Fallout newer series and the Elder Scroll. I am okay with FPS though
Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a hybrid FPS/3PS, but there is not a function that allows you to play the whole game in third person. You zoom out to third person during dialogue, while performing takedowns on an enemy, and while hiding behind cover. It seems jarring when you watch someone else play it, but it's actually really natural when you pick it up and play it yourself. It doesn't bother me as much as I thought it would.
That trailer gave me fething goosebumps. I watched a few other youtube videos and they, combined with the cinematic and the comments from this thread, have been enough to convince me to pre-order the limited edition. Thanks for the find Chrysaor, can't believe I haven't seen this game yet.
Chrysaor686 wrote:
You can no longer chalk it up to a lack of stealth-centric games or similar settings.
Sure I can, nostalgia is a powerful force. There's a reason many critics, of all types, regularly name their favorite things as those which were experienced in childhood. I think this has caused the game to be overrated.
Not that I'm immune to this, I overrate my own childhood gaming experiences.
dogma wrote:See, I never experienced that. When I played the game I found that it heavily encouraged stealth, to the point of combat being impossible in the early game. I've always felt that, in gaming, placing an emphasis on stealth is mistaken for freedom of choice, and that Deus Ex was a prime example of this. In fact, were it not for the terrible map design, I would say IW offered the player more choice in terms of problem solving.
Your problem was in the original game(s) the upgrade paths were not intuative and rifles were intruduced way before you could be skilled in them, so you really wanted to use bigger weapons but really you were better off blasting your pistol skill into orbit first. That and the stealth skills/paths were really skill-less meaning you can do them no matter how you were built, and they were the best way of getting through any area with more items/health/ect. was pretty stealth encouraging.
but yeah, you could go through as a meathead, just you had to play towards the system where the stealth portions of the game were intuiative. If you climb through this vent, you can avoid the fight, as opposed to "well I wish i had bought that rifle mod 4 hours ago so i could use this thing"
I was a huge fan of the original Deus Ex, will definitely pick this up. I liked the storyline a lot, and I found the feeling of becoming post-human really authentic with all the game changing augs you could get access to. It was FUN!
Chrysaor686 wrote: LOOK AT ME I GOT THE GAME EARLY TRALALALAALALALA
Judging from the gametrailers review it looks quite 'clunky'. The graphics are perfectly servicable but the animation (besides the 'canned' mocap stuff which doesnt count) in both the movement and facial/expression departments looks distinctly last gen. A further kick in the teeth is according to GT the story isnt great, If an internet 'journalist' says this it meansit will be TERRIBLE.
Positives/reasons i will probs still get it. I liked the previous games. Though repetitive the game seems to give you alot of 'choice' (i.e. ventilation ducts ). I think the soundtrack could be good. Theres nothing else to play till late september. Oh and the hacking looks cool.
Chrysaor686 wrote: LOOK AT ME I GOT THE GAME EARLY TRALALALAALALALA
Judging from the gametrailers review it looks quite 'clunky'. The graphics are perfectly servicable but the animation (besides the 'canned' mocap stuff which doesnt count) in both the movement and facial/expression departments looks distinctly last gen. A further kick in the teeth is according to GT the story isnt great, If an internet 'journalist' says this it meansit will be TERRIBLE.
Positives/reasons i will probs still get it. I liked the previous games. Though repetitive the game seems to give you alot of 'choice' (i.e. ventilation ducts ). I think the soundtrack could be good. Theres nothing else to play till late september. Oh and the hacking looks cool.
I think dear fellow that you have forgotten about Space Marine
On topic, if I get a sudden windfall then I will possibly buy this (and by windfall I mean my parents realising that my A level results were actually quite good)
Looks okay. I'll get it eventually, but I kinda put the purchase on backburner once I found out that they removed the feature that allows a player to play a female character.
So far so good. The facial animation isn't great but the voice acting is good and the story seems pretty good so far. I'm not happy with how dumbed down for console it feels. My problem so far is they removed the entire skill tree and now everything is just augmentations. They've gone with this overly flashy mass effect sorta vibe that doesn't thrill me. Because skills are now gone there's no more lock picking, multitools are also gone and everything is all about hacking and the problem with that is although you can "choose" not to augment yourself for hacking you pretty much have to which is a bit of a drag IMO. The game makes it perfectly clear that it's a stealth/cover shooter so why even have the options to go the other way with all out assault? It's like giving you a choice and then nagging you for hours about what a crappy choice you just made. It suffers from the same problem that the original deus ex had. You can kill like 30 dudes and apparently none of them pack more than a handful of bullets.
What I do like is they thankfully kept the inventory the same and you can even expand it now. A downside is health automatically regenerates and there's no medpack system, another casualty of being released on consoles. The biggest issue right now is the rediculous load times, I've got a beasty machine and the load times are 30-60 seconds. They claimed they moved to regenerative health because they felt having to look around for medpacks ruined the flow, but there is no flow because I die every few minutes and the long load times disrupt the flow far more than having to look for ways to patch yourself up.
Again, I'm only about 4 hours into the game so this cannot be considered a full review, I may even grow to like some of the changes. I still feel like I did after fallout 3 or oblivion, I feel would have liked these games more had they not been dumbed down for multi-platfrom release. Sometimes you need a keyboard and mouse..
Melissia wrote:... but I kinda put the purchase on backburner once I found out that they removed the feature that allows a player to play a female character.
That actually would have made the game more desirable for me, as well. At least in some respects -- I'd have to see how generic the character actually is. So, for example, a character like Shepherd from ME doesn't in my opinion really benefit too much by being of either gender (other than the throw-away romances). I think this is because he's actually got a pretty specific personality for a character that's supposed to be customisable. Action game protagonists often seem kind of bland and silent so a gender choice actually helps me get into it a bit more.
nomotog wrote:I am really enjoying this game. It reminds me of when I use to play the original DX. I opened a door with a shotgun. *troll face*
I'm pretty sure just about anything can be opened with proper application of force
I sure hope so. They don't highlight the doors only the locks, so I can only guess that doors are unbreakable, really strong or painted on. Too bad they don't let you punch open doors. (Far as I know.)
Melissia wrote:... but I kinda put the purchase on backburner once I found out that they removed the feature that allows a player to play a female character.
That actually would have made the game more desirable for me, as well. At least in some respects -- I'd have to see how generic the character actually is. So, for example, a character like Shepherd from ME doesn't in my opinion really benefit too much by being of either gender (other than the throw-away romances). I think this is because he's actually got a pretty specific personality for a character that's supposed to be customisable. Action game protagonists often seem kind of bland and silent so a gender choice actually helps me get into it a bit more.
I am glad they don't have a female option. I feel like I am playing a character, not some generic thing that can be altered to serve as my avatar. Jensen has a story to tell, that deals with his girlfriend etc. Switching this guy to a character that could be female or male would be like switching Nathan Drake in Uncharted from a man to a woman. The character isn't designed to be non-gender specific like how Alex D was in Deus Ex: Invisible War. In addition, Alex was also:
Spoiler:
a clone of JC Denton. The gender change from female to male and vice versa actually went along with that story line. Sex is probably the easiest thing to manipulate in genetics since it required you to substitute one chromosome with another.
Melissia wrote:Looks okay. I'll get it eventually, but I kinda put the purchase on backburner once I found out that they removed the feature that allows a player to play a female character.
It doesn't seem like they ever planned on giving you that option (The original was supposed to, but they cut it due to voice acting constraints, and Invisible War did have this feature, but Alex wasn't exactly a memorable character by any means). Adam Jensen is actually a fairly well-defined character, with certain traits (as well as a few key storyline elements) that could only apply to a male. He's not some blank slate or tabula rasa, like most RPG characters are, and his personality always shows through, even though you have the option of influencing what he actually says and does. I couldn't possibly imagine Jensen being gender neutral; it would drastically change certain elements of the storyline. This is one of those rare times where this would actually hurt the game.
At the very least, you're still open to trying the game eventually. You really should, because it's quite excellent in pretty much every respect. I'm sure you'll still find it plenty immersive regardless of the lack of a gender option.
Melissia wrote:... but I kinda put the purchase on backburner once I found out that they removed the feature that allows a player to play a female character.
That actually would have made the game more desirable for me, as well. At least in some respects -- I'd have to see how generic the character actually is. So, for example, a character like Shepherd from ME doesn't in my opinion really benefit too much by being of either gender (other than the throw-away romances). I think this is because he's actually got a pretty specific personality for a character that's supposed to be customisable. Action game protagonists often seem kind of bland and silent so a gender choice actually helps me get into it a bit more.
I am glad they don't have a female option. I feel like I am playing a character, not some generic thing that can be altered to serve as my avatar. Jensen has a story to tell, that deals with his girlfriend etc. Switching this guy to a character that could be female or male would be like switching Nathan Drake in Uncharted from a man to a woman. The character isn't designed to be non-gender specific like how Alex D was in Deus Ex: Invisible War. In addition, Alex was also:
Spoiler:
a clone of JC Denton. The gender change from female to male and vice versa actually went along with that story line. Sex is probably the easiest thing to manipulate in genetics since it required you to substitute one chromosome with another.
Erm not really... its a bit more complex than that. The X chromosome inherited has different genes activated than the other X from the mother.
I bought my copy yesterday. I wont be with the computer on which I can play it for another fortnight yet. Meanwhile the DVD case burns a hole in my travel bag.
I love the fact that a shotgun can still do everything. I found a trick to get by heavy boxes. You can just shoot a few heavy rounds into them and they will be pushed out of the way. You can also still open doors with landmines. Oh such fun.
Chrysaor686 wrote:It doesn't seem like they ever planned on giving you that option
Yeah, it blows.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote:I am glad they don't have a female option.
If they didn't have the female option, then I wish they just had a female lead period. Sadly, there's so few of those these days outside of indy games.
Which probably explains why I'm more into indy games to begin with these days.
Started playing last night (on the "Give me Deus Ex" difficulty of course) and played a bit more this morning, so far all I can really say is that it feels like the first game and that alone is enough for me. It's the small touches like the music and references to entities in the first game (eg Versalife) that really sell it.
As usual I'm playing in a stealthy try to kill as few people as possible manner. I'll probably go for a more psychopathic approach on my second run though.
Melissia wrote:... but I kinda put the purchase on backburner once I found out that they removed the feature that allows a player to play a female character.
That actually would have made the game more desirable for me, as well. At least in some respects -- I'd have to see how generic the character actually is. So, for example, a character like Shepherd from ME doesn't in my opinion really benefit too much by being of either gender (other than the throw-away romances). I think this is because he's actually got a pretty specific personality for a character that's supposed to be customisable. Action game protagonists often seem kind of bland and silent so a gender choice actually helps me get into it a bit more.
I am glad they don't have a female option. I feel like I am playing a character, not some generic thing that can be altered to serve as my avatar. Jensen has a story to tell, that deals with his girlfriend etc. Switching this guy to a character that could be female or male would be like switching Nathan Drake in Uncharted from a man to a woman. The character isn't designed to be non-gender specific like how Alex D was in Deus Ex: Invisible War. In addition, Alex was also:
Spoiler:
a clone of JC Denton. The gender change from female to male and vice versa actually went along with that story line. Sex is probably the easiest thing to manipulate in genetics since it required you to substitute one chromosome with another.
Erm not really... its a bit more complex than that. The X chromosome inherited has different genes activated than the other X from the mother.
No gak man. Anyone who thinks my one sentence fully explained gender and genetics is a moron and your additional sentence...well it is a bit more complex than that. If we are talking about the complexity of the subject we would need a book.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Lord Scythican wrote:I am glad they don't have a female option.
If they didn't have the female option, then I wish they just had a female lead period. Sadly, there's so few of those these days outside of indy games.
Which probably explains why I'm more into indy games to begin with these days.
Fair enough. I think there should be way more games with female leads. I like the option to choose as well, but sometimes it just doesn't fit. For instance, you know that new tomb raider game coming out? It would be stupid if I got to change the lead character into a male. The game should have a female character.
Melissia wrote:Heh. No, I'm just saying that I was talking about a manly character, not that pathetic Mr. Nathan "No Personality" McBlandyPants Drake.
Nathan Drake is as bland as James Bond, Lara Croft, and so on and on. Of course he also lacks personality just like every other videogame character in games that some people don't like.
It is a real same that we don't have more female leads in video games. It's also quite sad how they treat the female charters they do have. Poor chell doesn't even get to be in her own TV ad. She gets replaced by two random robots.
nomotog wrote:It is a real same that we don't have more female leads in video games. It's also quite sad how they treat the female charters they do have. Poor chell doesn't even get to be in her own TV ad. She gets replaced by two random robots.
nomotog wrote:It is a real same that we don't have more female leads in video games. It's also quite sad how they treat the female charters they do have. Poor chell doesn't even get to be in her own TV ad. She gets replaced by two random robots.
Melissia wrote:Heh. No, I'm just saying that I was talking about a manly character, not that pathetic Mr. Nathan "No Personality" McBlandyPants Drake.
Nathan Drake is as bland as James Bond, Lara Croft, and so on and on. Of course he also lacks personality just like most other videogame character in games that some people don't like.
Fixed.
I would agree that most video game characters are bland generic boring essentially interchangable white guys, though.
You can do all of them. You can't completely talk your way in, you have to mix talking with something else.
It's really easy to mix and mach different styles. I actually will ping pong between sneaky to shooty based on how board I am or how badly i botch my sneaking.
Whats neat is that many augments pull duality in combat and sneaking. Like the cloak augment. It's really useful to give you more time to line up shots or let you move out of a corner. It's also real nice when combined with the claymore augment. Oh and it's also good when you want to sneak.
Melissia wrote:Heh. No, I'm just saying that I was talking about a manly character, not that pathetic Mr. Nathan "No Personality" McBlandyPants Drake.
Nathan Drake is as bland as James Bond, Lara Croft, and so on and on. Of course he also lacks personality just like most other videogame character in games that some people don't like.
Fixed.
I would agree that most video game characters are bland generic boring essentially interchangable white guys, though.
I would say all characters are about the same, just because one has flesh sagging from their chest instead of between their legs doesn't make much of a difference. Look at Chell from the Portal Games, she's so generic that she doesn't even talk. Nathan Drake was more like Daniel Craig in Casino Royal for my best comparison of his character and just about every single female lead has been the same; Rayne, Lara Croft, that chick from the game 'Wet', and evenly Heavenly Sword's buxom character are all similar to each other and in the end to their male counterparts. All characters lack 'personality' because there are very few personalities that would fit a person who is the lead in a game; I would want to play as some kind of confident character as opposed to Eeyore any day of the week and just because one is a chick that doesn't mean its a different personality, its just a different bland shell.
First boss = me throwing barrels and a couple grenades, which were the only offensive weapons i had.
Just out of interest how can this game be played 'run and gun'? It is ridiculously stingy with ammo. You would run out within seconds. This game is stealth action, and stealth action ONLY, the multiple play styles thing is kinda bullcrap.
The only way i have got through the game is doing take downs on the last little lozenge of energy (as it never runs out, not wasting my chocolate bars ). Dont get me wrong though, i am enjoying it. I just think the 'Survival horror' approach to ammo is a bit restricting, Even Resi 4 had more freakin ammo! I gave up on guns (of any kind) after the first couple missions.
Run and gun still uses a bit of stealth. You can't just try to spray paint the walls with blood an bullets. You have to pause and aim. You also want to take advantage of the fact that most encounters start you out hidden. Make sure you pick off the biggest guy before they see you. You can buy ammo, so if you want run and gun you should sell your noncombat stuff and buy more rounds. Also you want to use the pistol it's the most common ammo type by far.
Oh and don't forget to look around for weapon upgrades. The homing assault rifle is so so fun.
halonachos wrote:I would say all characters are about the same
Most characters are blank slates (whom happen to almost always be white and male, but I digress), but not all of them are.
All characters regardless of age, sex, location are blank slates. Well not necessarily blank, but just not unique, I say that because you can contrast any character made today to any character made in the past. Nathan Drake is just like Lara Croft minus the british accent and wealth and Lara Croft is like Indiana Jones who lacks a british accent. They all fight a bad guy who has an illusion of grandeur that can be gained by using some kind of occult item.
Rayne is just like Kain in the fact that they are both vampires and they both come from games that capitalize on that concept(Blood Rayne was a bit better because of the gibbing aspect which is always a big draw for me), but they both are part of this secret group and fight against some sort of mass conspiracy it just happens that Kain fights medieval Nazis and Rayne fights Nazi-Nazis.
Every single character from the CoD series is just like every single character from the CoD series which is the same as Medal of Honor and Battlefield.
Mass Effect's Shephard is just like Saints Row's created character except that one of them is in a gang and the other one is in space and they all happen to be like the Fallout and Elder Scroll's characters in the aspect that you can change them around and it would never change the actual storyline.
Nathan Hale from Resistance is like Master Chief, both are super powered soldiers defending the planet from some alien threat and both were turned into super soldiers involuntarily Master Chief through a funded program Hale through some sort of genetic reaction to the alien invaders. Both of them are like Samus Aran in the fact that they fight aliens of course, but also because they're super soldiers.
All of these characters have been mirrored in movies and books long before their time. There are not enough personalities in the world to make any game individual from the others, hell the guy from Deus Ex can be seen partially in Soylent Green or any movie where a man tries to fight against some massive conspiracy and or government organization(Gattaca is also similar although focuses on genetics versus machinery and lacks a full on war.).
It has all been done before and the only thing to do is just play the game for whatever story they decided to put up for the world to see, if its good then its a good use of the same story. Modern Warfare has basically copied Battlefield 2 for the consoles, which reminds me of Red Storm Rising which was a Tom Clancy book, and all of them focused on a terrorist group that attacked one country and blamed another for it to start a war between those two countries its just that it was America vs Russia/China and the terrorist group was Muslim Fanatics/Extremists and culminated in the attempted nuclear launch/actual nuclear launch/attempted nuclear launch but leaders were overthrown in the end.
"Every character is just like every other character, except when they aren't" is a very useless argument.
You may not value female characters in games, that's your prerogative. But I do. You don't find it logical, but I find your argument hilariously fallacious and utterly nonsensical, myself, so... let's just move on and not interrupt people who want to talk about Deus Ex instead.
Melissia wrote:"Every character is just like every other character, except when they aren't" is a very useless argument.
Except in science were everything follows a rule except for the one's that don't.
Melissia wrote: You may not value female characters in games, that's your prerogative. But I do. You don't find it logical, but I find your argument hilariously fallacious and utterly nonsensical, myself, so... let's just move on and not interrupt people who want to talk about Deus Ex instead.
You missed my point entirely, characters have the same personality its just the cosmetics and backgrounds that change so while you discuss characters being 'bland' I say that they aren't bland but there aren't enough combinations in the world to make a truly unique and therefor non-bland character. I don't get where you get the idea that I don't like or don't value female leads, just because I find the current ones as boring as their male counterparts doesn't mean I don't value them and you keep making that mistake every time this comes up.
As far as female characters go, if it fits then so be it. I enjoyed several games with female leads because they fit the story that the game writers were trying to convey, but I don't enjoy games that play too much off of sex appeal though, especially if it involves violence. Mortal Kombat being one of those games that make me think "You know this is fun dismembering people and all, but why does everyone in Outworld wear latex?". Don't get the point of the love-lines in ME2 either, I just play to shoot the hell out of things and enjoy the ride.
Now if it turns out that the pyro in TF2 is actually a female, then there's a huge twist on that seeing as though I have never in my life heard of a female character who's main prerogative is to burn stuff. I've seen homicidal psychopaths, Munchhausen Syndrome gals and basic revenge types, but never one that just wants to burn things so that would make me sit back and go "Wow, that's new." in a non-sarcastic tone.
Or I just don't care enough to bother arguing with your inanities at this point. Which, you know, might explain my sentence saying ""let's just move on and not interrupt people who want to talk about Deus Ex instead".
So I got the game last night and started playing it. I saw the Square Enix logo come up and I cringed, but I thought to myself, "No, you know what, this game isn't going to be bad. Everyone says it's awesome, and everyone wouldn't lie. I'll keep an open mind." And I did.
And the game wasn't that bad. Sure, I die if someone shoots me a nasty glare, but I'm playing it on the hardest difficulty, which seems like realistic on Deus Ex the First, so I can't complain there. That's what I signed up for. Sure, there's a 10 percent chance that any time I enter into a cut scene, the game will black screen on me and I'll have to force close it and re-open, (showing me the 2 minute long unskippable list of all of the companies that knew someone who knew someone who worked on it. That's right, it's a Square Enix game. It reminded me again) but I'm sure that'll get fixed in a patch, eventually, maybe.
Sure, they let the guy who does costume design for the FF games handle designing the wardrobe for all the characters in this game, you know, "I like Victorian collars" guy, it's not so obviously "Japan" that it's jarring. I like popped Victorian collars too. When I go out, I actually wear four polo shirts, with collars popped, with a button up shirt over the top, with it's collar popped, with a victorian collar popped, with actually one of those cones they make dogs wear so they can't lick themselves over the top of it.
Sure, going into 'cover mode' is clunky at times because I've found I can be too close of all the things to the barricade I want to hide behind, but the first to third person switching is actually really cool looking and the flips you can do between obstacles I'm sure would look amazing in a John Woo film.
Then I hit the first unskippable boss fight, and that's when the game went from being cool with some jarring elements into being outright painful. Suffice to say, I can't beat him. I really can't. I've spent probably two hours between yesterday and today fighting him over and over again, with about 10 minutes of that being reloading the game when it crashes loading up that cut scene right before the fight (yes, hi Square Enix, don't worry, I see you).
And it's not that I'm BAD at first person shooters. Of my normal group of friends, I typically score higher than they do in kill count in FPSes that we play together. I beat Deus Ex on hardmode. It's cause I got to be smart about doing it. I've been mostly stealthy, with a bit of killing gak that can't be avoided. Maybe I don't have enough ammo left as the game typically offers diminishing returns for actually killing things, maybe it's this worthless crossbow that I haven't had a chance to turn in for the quest yet, maybe I just have the wrong weapons with me. This bossfight though was a guy who can't be suckerpunched by a rocket, can't be outsmarted/evaded, can't be killswitched; you can't do anything to him but run from column to column hoping not to get shot to gak the entire time. All the while he's repeating the same two one-liners over and over again. "You like pineapples boy scout?" I quite literally feel like they must have pulled one of the Metal Gear Solid bosses out and just stuck him in the game. To make matters frustrating, I watched a video on fighting the guy that IGN (or whatever) put out on youtube. Their way of fighting him was to loose more frag grenades than I found stealthing around, and then somehow blindly shoot him while in cover more accurately that I seem to be able to with the steel sights.
So, I guess my point is, it's been a fun game, minus the last two hours of boss fight. It's not Deus Ex though. Deus Ex would have given me the chance to get away from the guy, or develop some plan for coping with him that didn't require being Solid SNake.
Then I hit the first unskippable boss fight, and that's when the game went from being cool with some jarring elements into being outright painful. Suffice to say, I can't beat him. I really can't. I've spent probably two hours between yesterday and today fighting him over and over again, with about 10 minutes of that being reloading the game when it crashes loading up that cut scene right before the fight (yes, hi Square Enix, don't worry, I see you).
What?
You know there are a bunch of weapons scattered around?
Worst comes to worst, just spam Typhoon - that kills most bosses in about 3 or 4 shots.
Yeah, I found the weapons after the fact. Does that make anything I said less true? Take the fight with Walter from the first game, there was stuff you could trap him on (electric floor), he didn't suddenly decide to switch fire modes on you midway through the battle, and worst case, you could suckerpunch him with a gep rocket before the fight started. It was BELIEVABLE. And this is me not talking about the fact that the first two bosses you could autokill with code words.
Melissia wrote:Heh. No, I'm just saying that I was talking about a manly character, not that pathetic Mr. Nathan "No Personality" McBlandyPants Drake.
Nathan Drake is as bland as James Bond, Lara Croft, and so on and on. Of course he also lacks personality just like most other videogame character in games that some people don't like.
Fixed.
I would agree that most video game characters are bland generic boring essentially interchangable white guys, though.
I would say all characters are about the same, just because one has flesh sagging from their chest instead of between their legs doesn't make much of a difference. Look at Chell from the Portal Games, she's so generic that she doesn't even talk. Nathan Drake was more like Daniel Craig in Casino Royal for my best comparison of his character and just about every single female lead has been the same; Rayne, Lara Croft, that chick from the game 'Wet', and evenly Heavenly Sword's buxom character are all similar to each other and in the end to their male counterparts. All characters lack 'personality' because there are very few personalities that would fit a person who is the lead in a game; I would want to play as some kind of confident character as opposed to Eeyore any day of the week and just because one is a chick that doesn't mean its a different personality, its just a different bland shell.
I wouldn't waste any more of you time with that one. Once Melissa starts on a opinion, she is like a brick wall. Anyone who dislikes games as much as her because they feature a white male as a lead as a seriously flawed opinion.
Lord Scythican wrote:I wouldn't waste any more of you time with that one. Once Melissa starts on a opinion, she is like a brick wall. Anyone who dislikes games as much as her because they feature a white male as a lead as a seriously flawed opinion.
Anyone who thinks that I dislike games because of this is obviously either a troll or isn't actually reading my posts. Which are you?
I like games which have a female lead, or the option of playing a female lead, better. Just like I like games which don't crash better than ones that do. And just like I like games which have better written storylines more than onse which don't. Or games with interesting and varied gameplay more than games with dull, frustrating repetitiveness.
There is nothing here saying I DISLIKE games because they don't have a female lead. That's just people like you putting words in my posts that were never there before.
daedalus wrote:Yeah, I found the weapons after the fact. Does that make anything I said less true? Take the fight with Walter from the first game, there was stuff you could trap him on (electric floor), he didn't suddenly decide to switch fire modes on you midway through the battle, and worst case, you could suckerpunch him with a gep rocket before the fight started. It was BELIEVABLE. And this is me not talking about the fact that the first two bosses you could autokill with code words.
You could just try setting the difficulty down in the options? Unless you're going for the achievement, but still.
There are many ways of taking him down. Sure, not as many as the original, but you can:
-Stun him with EMP grenades, then shoot him.
-Blind-fire from cover.
-Use Typhoons.
-Hold on to that Rocket Launcher you find.
-Dermal-plating, lots of painkillers and just strafe around him.
-Get him to walk next to the explosive barrels and shoot them. (Pretty much the only stealth way).
I'd also be quick to say - sure it's probably not as good as the original Deus Ex, but it still is quite clearly one. Seems a bit harsh to say it's not, just because the designers made a bad decision to make bosses must-fights. It is certainly better than Invisible War.
That boss did seem quite hard initially. Admittedly i am on normal so can stand a little bit longer in the firing line.
Best strategy? Soon as the fight begins chuck an EMP grenade, this staggers him. He is staggered for a laughably long time, so you could probably crossbow him too. Then run to the first explosive barrel you see, pick it up and throw it at him, keep throwing the barrels and frag grenades (i only had two). The bosses dotn have bigger healthbars on the hardest level, its just yours is smaller.
The only augment i had which helped was enhanced strength. I didnt use any painkillers/hypnostims or have dermal plating. You are a FOOL if you dont have that power by the way, apart from 'big jump', 'lift up vending machines' is the most useful.
The second boss however was a JOKE! Shoot with stun prod, typhoon, Shoot with stun prod, Typhoon, Shoot with stun prod, Typhoon etc.... She didnt even fire off a shot!
Lord Scythican wrote:I wouldn't waste any more of you time with that one. Once Melissa starts on a opinion, she is like a brick wall. Anyone who dislikes games as much as her because they feature a white male as a lead as a seriously flawed opinion.
Anyone who thinks that I dislike games because of this is obviously either a troll or isn't actually reading my posts. Which are you?
I like games which have a female lead, or the option of playing a female lead, better. Just like I like games which don't crash better than ones that do. And just like I like games which have better written storylines more than onse which don't. Or games with interesting and varied gameplay more than games with dull, frustrating repetitiveness.
There is nothing here saying I DISLIKE games because they don't have a female lead. That's just people like you putting words in my posts that were never there before.
Maybe I read too much into your posts, but here any more it seems you are at least negative regarding the issue. Just about every post you have made in this thread is about your disappointment regarding the lack of a female lead in this game. You are ready to throw it on the backburner because the character has a wang. That comes off as dislike whether you think it does or not.
Perkustin wrote:That boss did seem quite hard initially. Admittedly i am on normal so can stand a little bit longer in the firing line.
Best strategy? Soon as the fight begins chuck an EMP grenade, this staggers him. He is staggered for a laughably long time, so you could probably crossbow him too. Then run to the first explosive barrel you see, pick it up and throw it at him, keep throwing the barrels and frag grenades (i only had two). The bosses dotn have bigger healthbars on the hardest level, its just yours is smaller.
The only augment i had which helped was enhanced strength. I didnt use any painkillers/hypnostims or have dermal plating. You are a FOOL if you dont have that power by the way, apart from 'big jump', 'lift up vending machines' is the most useful.
The second boss however was a JOKE! Shoot with stun prod, typhoon, Shoot with stun prod, Typhoon, Shoot with stun prod, Typhoon etc.... She didnt even fire off a shot!
The second boss can be stunned if you shoot the stun-gun at the water whilst she's in it, too.
The game is ok , i'd say an 8.5 outa 10 . -my two cents. Will i be modding it a year later ala oblivion no. I do like it tho and dx 11 on high looks yummy except the little white specs i see sometimes on npc heads .
Deathshead420 wrote:The game is ok , i'd say an 8.5 outa 10 . -my two cents. Will i be modding it a year later ala oblivion no. I do like it tho and dx 11 on high looks yummy except the little white specs i see sometimes on npc heads .
I agree. The game is everything that I wanted as far as gameplay and story, but the graphics are a tad last gen in some areas. If it had character models like the ones in Mass Effect 2, I would say it would be a ten.
Lord Scythican wrote:You are ready to throw it on the backburner
Well yeah, I'm not rich enough to buy every game that strikes my fancy. No, my funds are quite limited. I have to be selective. I might get four big name games a year and then some cheaper indy games, and as a PC gamer if I don't like the game I buy I'm pretty much just stuck with it.
daedalus wrote:So I got the game last night and started playing it. I saw the Square Enix logo come up and I cringed, but I thought to myself, "No, you know what, this game isn't going to be bad. Everyone says it's awesome, and everyone wouldn't lie. I'll keep an open mind." And I did.
And the game wasn't that bad. Sure, I die if someone shoots me a nasty glare, but I'm playing it on the hardest difficulty, which seems like realistic on Deus Ex the First, so I can't complain there. That's what I signed up for. Sure, there's a 10 percent chance that any time I enter into a cut scene, the game will black screen on me and I'll have to force close it and re-open, (showing me the 2 minute long unskippable list of all of the companies that knew someone who knew someone who worked on it. That's right, it's a Square Enix game. It reminded me again) but I'm sure that'll get fixed in a patch, eventually, maybe.
Sure, they let the guy who does costume design for the FF games handle designing the wardrobe for all the characters in this game, you know, "I like Victorian collars" guy, it's not so obviously "Japan" that it's jarring. I like popped Victorian collars too. When I go out, I actually wear four polo shirts, with collars popped, with a button up shirt over the top, with it's collar popped, with a victorian collar popped, with actually one of those cones they make dogs wear so they can't lick themselves over the top of it.
Sure, going into 'cover mode' is clunky at times because I've found I can be too close of all the things to the barricade I want to hide behind, but the first to third person switching is actually really cool looking and the flips you can do between obstacles I'm sure would look amazing in a John Woo film.
Then I hit the first unskippable boss fight, and that's when the game went from being cool with some jarring elements into being outright painful. Suffice to say, I can't beat him. I really can't. I've spent probably two hours between yesterday and today fighting him over and over again, with about 10 minutes of that being reloading the game when it crashes loading up that cut scene right before the fight (yes, hi Square Enix, don't worry, I see you).
And it's not that I'm BAD at first person shooters. Of my normal group of friends, I typically score higher than they do in kill count in FPSes that we play together. I beat Deus Ex on hardmode. It's cause I got to be smart about doing it. I've been mostly stealthy, with a bit of killing gak that can't be avoided. Maybe I don't have enough ammo left as the game typically offers diminishing returns for actually killing things, maybe it's this worthless crossbow that I haven't had a chance to turn in for the quest yet, maybe I just have the wrong weapons with me. This bossfight though was a guy who can't be suckerpunched by a rocket, can't be outsmarted/evaded, can't be killswitched; you can't do anything to him but run from column to column hoping not to get shot to gak the entire time. All the while he's repeating the same two one-liners over and over again. "You like pineapples boy scout?" I quite literally feel like they must have pulled one of the Metal Gear Solid bosses out and just stuck him in the game. To make matters frustrating, I watched a video on fighting the guy that IGN (or whatever) put out on youtube. Their way of fighting him was to loose more frag grenades than I found stealthing around, and then somehow blindly shoot him while in cover more accurately that I seem to be able to with the steel sights.
So, I guess my point is, it's been a fun game, minus the last two hours of boss fight. It's not Deus Ex though. Deus Ex would have given me the chance to get away from the guy, or develop some plan for coping with him that didn't require being Solid SNake.
At first I had trouble with that boss as well, but then I threw these gas cannisters at him. It choked him, then i found a red barrel and threw that at him and it exploded and then just to finish things off nicely I shot him. Just a matter of getting him before he gets you i'm afraid to say, you can stun gun him to stun him or use an emp grenade and shoot but don/t bother moving from cover to cover fighting him, he takes to much damage and you'll run out of ammo long before he dies.
I really struggled with the first boss (all my augs are for hacking and stealth!), but I just lobbed all 3 grenades I had found, while emptying my machine pistol into his face. Took me a good half a dozen tries, but finally got it.
Cerebrium wrote:I really struggled with the first boss (all my augs are for hacking and stealth!), but I just lobbed all 3 grenades I had found, while emptying my machine pistol into his face. Took me a good half a dozen tries, but finally got it.
all the boss fights have environmental stuff you can do to them to beat them without being excessive in combat, but it is a pain to figure out.
that being said, having 200 or so rounds for the combat rifle or machine pistol or heavy rifle makes your life alot easier, the 2nd boss especially is a huge pain in the butt if you don't have many weapons.
Blind fire is also your friend once you get the target tracking module for the rifle
Asuron wrote:
At first I had trouble with that boss as well, but then I threw these gas cannisters at him. It choked him, then i found a red barrel and threw that at him and it exploded and then just to finish things off nicely I shot him. Just a matter of getting him before he gets you i'm afraid to say, you can stun gun him to stun him or use an emp grenade and shoot but don/t bother moving from cover to cover fighting him, he takes to much damage and you'll run out of ammo long before he dies.
Yeah, I got him eventually, but it was just a jarring departure from the Deus Ex "feel" and really made it feel like just another video game. The constant "I can't do anything more complicated than walk around without chanting a one-liner every time I do it" got old quick too.
Asuron wrote:
At first I had trouble with that boss as well, but then I threw these gas cannisters at him. It choked him, then i found a red barrel and threw that at him and it exploded and then just to finish things off nicely I shot him. Just a matter of getting him before he gets you i'm afraid to say, you can stun gun him to stun him or use an emp grenade and shoot but don/t bother moving from cover to cover fighting him, he takes to much damage and you'll run out of ammo long before he dies.
Yeah, I got him eventually, but it was just a jarring departure from the Deus Ex "feel" and really made it feel like just another video game. The constant "I can't do anything more complicated than walk around without chanting a one-liner every time I do it" got old quick too.
It was VERY Square Enix.
That's what I was worried about to and you can definitely feel Squares influence on those parts of the game. Overall though Eidos did an excellent job I think. But then again these are the guys that did Arkham Asylum and Just Cause 2 I believe, so I shouldn't be suprised
Asuron wrote:
At first I had trouble with that boss as well, but then I threw these gas cannisters at him. It choked him, then i found a red barrel and threw that at him and it exploded and then just to finish things off nicely I shot him. Just a matter of getting him before he gets you i'm afraid to say, you can stun gun him to stun him or use an emp grenade and shoot but don/t bother moving from cover to cover fighting him, he takes to much damage and you'll run out of ammo long before he dies.
Yeah, I got him eventually, but it was just a jarring departure from the Deus Ex "feel" and really made it feel like just another video game. The constant "I can't do anything more complicated than walk around without chanting a one-liner every time I do it" got old quick too.
It was VERY Square Enix.
I was imagining more of a cat and mouse game chasing the mercs around, from the trailer and how the game began than what I got too, but you cant win em all.
A few of the boss fights are exceptions, the last one is pretty cool and there's a few really big fights as well.
apparently you can beat the game without killing anyone but bosses, there's got to be some serious cloaking and running near the end of the game XD
Square Enix had nothing to do with the production of the game; they are just the publisher. Eidos Montreal was already almost finished with the project when Square Enix became their publisher. The closest they came to actually working on the game was making the cinematic trailers (with oversight from Eidos Montreal).
Asuron wrote:But then again these are the guys that did Arkham Asylum and Just Cause 2 I believe, so I shouldn't be suprised
No, this is Eidos Montreal's first game as a collective studio.
Why do people always think the publisher has anything to do with game production? It's really starting to get on my nerves. People make this mistake all the time, and it's really hard to understand exactly why. Due credit is almost never given anymore (especially when Bethesda publsihes a game, but that's beside the point).
Publishers DO have influence on their developers, in fact, perhaps a bigger influence than the customers,because they have the money needed for development in the first place.
How much influence they actually practice is another issue. Companies like THQ prefer to give more freedom to the developers I believe, for example, but they still do quality control on games and an extra layer of testing for patches.
Why do people always think the publisher has anything to do with game production? It's really starting to get on my nerves. People make this mistake all the time, and it's really hard to understand exactly why. Due credit is almost never given anymore (especially when Bethesda publsihes a game, but that's beside the point).
Chrysaor686 wrote:
Why do people always think the publisher has anything to do with game production? It's really starting to get on my nerves. People make this mistake all the time, and it's really hard to understand exactly why. Due credit is almost never given anymore (especially when Bethesda publsihes a game, but that's beside the point).
When the man in the suit who's funding your game (or movie, or album, or book) comes down to your studio, looks at something, and says they don't like it, then you change it, or you lose your publisher. They took one look at it and said, "AAA games have boss fights," and then the next day boss fights were added. To think otherwise is naive.
Here's another example: EA Games. Just ask anyone who enjoyed any games from Origin, Bullfrog, DICE, or Maxis, to name a few.
Melissia wrote:Publishers DO have influence on their developers, in fact, perhaps a bigger influence than the customers,because they have the money needed for development in the first place.
How much influence they actually practice is another issue. Companies like THQ prefer to give more freedom to the developers I believe, for example, but they still do quality control on games and an extra layer of testing for patches.
Generally, publishers are limited to broad commentary on what needs to be fixed, or what doesn't work. They (generally) have no specific control over art direction or creative control of the game, and it is fairly rare for a publisher to expend some of it's own in-house effort on actual development. The amount of work that most people tend to credit to the publisher is absolutely astonishing.
Grundz wrote:because you are wrong? ~_^
No, I'm not.
daedalus wrote:When the man in the suit who's funding your game (or movie, or album, or book) comes down to your studio, looks at something, and says they don't like it, then you change it, or you lose your publisher. They took one look at it and said, "AAA games have boss fights," and then the next day boss fights were added. To think otherwise is naive.
While this is true to an extent, developers are still almost completely responsible for directing the solution to a publisher's 'problem', and are mostly only constricted by broad terminology (again, publishers try to expend as few resources as possible on game development because they have other matters to worry about, such as marketing and paying the development team that's already in place).
Square Enix came in so late in the project (again, they were in post-production) that their influence was completely minimal. It has been said by the devs that Square Enix were almost completely happy with the product when they took over publishing DX:HR, and there was little to no resistance to anything the team had already done. Square Enix had such a minimal impact on the game itself (aside from the excellent trailers) that you're arguing in the wrong direction.
Boss fights aren't so easily implemented, especially considering that the rendered cutscenes are obviously from an earlier build of the game. Even though they still stand as the weakest points of the game, they aren't quite as awful as most people make them out to be. At the very least, I can see what the devs were trying to do, even if they didn't completely succeed. There is still emergent gameplay to be found within those boss fights, and intelligence is rewarded much like it is in the rest of the game. If you come into a boss fight with the same mindset you have for exploration and problem solving within the game, you're bound to come up with a good solution.
For instance, I managed to make Barret blow himself up using his own grenades by utilizing my stealth camo in a creative way.
Again, it's disappointing that there's not multiple ways around these boss fights (like there was in the first game), but they still encourage you to make the best of what you have and to use actual logic to take them down. There are no flashing weakpoints or repetitive patterns here.
Chrysaor686 wrote:Generally, publishers are limited to broad commentary on what needs to be fixed, or what doesn't work. They (generally) have no specific control over art direction or creative control of the game
They have it, because they provide the money. As I said, whether or not they USE the power is a different issue entirely. But to say they don't have it is just ignorance.
An employer has power over what their employees/contractors do on the job, and that's essentially the same relationship that producers have over developers. That they give devs more freedom simply means that they trust the developers and don't want to impede on the creative process.
Melissia wrote:They have it, because they provide the money. As I said, whether or not they USE the power is a different issue entirely. But to say they don't have it is just ignorance.
An employer has power over what their employees/contractors do on the job.
They do, but you still overestimate this power, since they are only indirectly pouring resources into coding or art direction. The best they can usually do is say 'Do something else' or 'It would be cool if you put something like this in', because they usually don't have the capability of making the changes themselves, unless a game is being published by someone who has their own development studio that isn't completely tied up in another project. Even then, that costs a whole lot more than subtle guidance.
Chrysaor686 wrote:The best they can usually do is say 'Do something else' or 'It would be cool if you put something like this in', because they usually don't have the capability of making the changes themselves
So? Why does that matter?
A manager with a PHD in business management doesn't have the knowledge and capability of the engineers under his/her authority. S/He still can and does tell them what to do and what not to do, as that's his/her job. Some managers take a more laissez-faire approach, but that's a management choice, not a show that they don't have power.
Chrysaor686 wrote:The best they can usually do is say 'Do something else' or 'It would be cool if you put something like this in', because they usually don't have the capability of making the changes themselves
So? Why does that matter?
A manager with a PHD in business management doesn't have the knowledge and capability of the engineers under his/her authority. S/He still can and does tell them what to do and what not to do, as that's his/her job. Some managers take a more laissez-faire approach, but that's a management choice, not a show that they don't have power.
Its actually negotiated how much creative control the upper management has usually in the pitch process. Generally the folks with the money are providing a large QA team, marketing, money, and some other things that you would assume that a bunch of programmers and stuff don't have like manufacturing contacts.
Most Dev processes are based on milestones that are set by the negotiating team, stuff like "solid beta" "multiplayer works" "triage phase" "ready to go gold" ect. and upper management can make the call to pull features, add them, or make organizational and creative changes to the game pretty much at will. You are right that it depends on the management teams, places like bungie that vaguely belong to the parent company and are more self contained with a good product can do pretty much what they want, where EA will buy a company and pretty much gut it of unnecessary scrap, have the team release a few rushed products to turn a profit and then liquefy it.
Lord Scythican wrote:You are ready to throw it on the backburner
Well yeah, I'm not rich enough to buy every game that strikes my fancy. No, my funds are quite limited. I have to be selective. I might get four big name games a year and then some cheaper indy games, and as a PC gamer if I don't like the game I buy I'm pretty much just stuck with it.
Have you thought about going with gamefly or even one of those blockbuster passes?
Melissia wrote:Again, PC games. Neither of them have any.
Ah, that's why you can't afford many games. Top end PCs can be expensive, and if you are not shelling out cash for upgrades every few years, then you will fall behind on the system requirements. You should give up on the best graphics and branch out a little more. Hell I still have fun with my NES.
No, actually. My current system can handle almost every game, and it's five years old and only cost slightly more than a brand new PS3 at the time.
Don't start a console war here. That would just be stupid.
The reason I can't afford many games is because I'm a college student who isn't leaching off of her parents, but isntead paying her own way through college.
Melissia wrote:No, actually. My current system can handle almost every game, and it's five years old and only cost slightly more than a brand new PS3 at the time.
Don't start a console war here. That would just be stupid.
The reason I can't afford many games is because I'm a college student who isn't leaching off of her parents, but isntead paying her own way through college.
I didn't leech off my parents and paid for my college just the same.
As far as console wars go, I am not starting them. I am talking about having the best graphics being expensive. Having a system that can "handle" almost every game isn't even close to that.
A manager with a PHD in business management doesn't have the knowledge and capability of the engineers under his/her authority. S/He still can and does tell them what to do and what not to do, as that's his/her job. Some managers take a more laissez-faire approach, but that's a management choice, not a show that they don't have power.
The reason it matters is because that's not direct influence. I just want people to stop crediting publishers with everything they like or dislike about a game (you wouldn't believe how many times I hear people bashing Bethesda for Brink's failure when it's Splash Damage's game, for example). Once developers start getting their due credit (whether this acknowledgment is good or bad), I'll be at peace.
As an aside, Laisez-Faire is the only approach that really works in game development. Videogames are the most complex pieces of code on the market, and the more you stick your hands in something you know nothing about, the quicker you're bound to feth it up. Good publishers understand this, bad publishers do not (and this is pretty much universally accepted as fact). It doesn't really work both ways in this scenario. The more you twist your employees to your whim (or the whim of corporate interest and maximum revenue) the less desirable the work will be. Examples of this are everywhere.
Guidance is one thing, but crediting a publisher for something that is clearly the work of a developer is plainly stupid.
A manager with a PHD in business management doesn't have the knowledge and capability of the engineers under his/her authority. S/He still can and does tell them what to do and what not to do, as that's his/her job. Some managers take a more laissez-faire approach, but that's a management choice, not a show that they don't have power.
The reason it matters is because that's not direct influence. I just want people to stop crediting publishers with everything they like or dislike about a game (you wouldn't believe how many times I hear people bashing Bethesda for Brink's failure when it's Splash Damage's game, for example). Once developers start getting their due credit (whether this acknowledgment is good or bad), I'll be at peace.
As an aside, Laisez-Faire is the only approach that really works in game development. Videogames are the most complex pieces of code on the market, and the more you stick your hands in something you know nothing about, the quicker you're bound to feth it up. Good publishers understand this, bad publishers do not (and this is pretty much universally accepted as fact). It doesn't really work both ways in this scenario. The more you twist your employees to your whim (or the whim of corporate interest and maximum revenue) the less desirable the work will be. Examples of this are everywhere.
Guidance is one thing, but crediting a publisher for something that is clearly the work of a developer is plainly stupid.
A manager with a PHD in business management doesn't have the knowledge and capability of the engineers under his/her authority. S/He still can and does tell them what to do and what not to do, as that's his/her job. Some managers take a more laissez-faire approach, but that's a management choice, not a show that they don't have power.
The reason it matters is because that's not direct influence. I just want people to stop crediting publishers with everything they like or dislike about a game (you wouldn't believe how many times I hear people bashing Bethesda for Brink's failure when it's Splash Damage's game, for example). Once developers start getting their due credit (whether this acknowledgment is good or bad), I'll be at peace.
As an aside, Laisez-Faire is the only approach that really works in game development. Videogames are the most complex pieces of code on the market, and the more you stick your hands in something you know nothing about, the quicker you're bound to feth it up. Good publishers understand this, bad publishers do not (and this is pretty much universally accepted as fact). It doesn't really work both ways in this scenario. The more you twist your employees to your whim (or the whim of corporate interest and maximum revenue) the less desirable the work will be. Examples of this are everywhere.
Guidance is one thing, but crediting a publisher for something that is clearly the work of a developer is plainly stupid.
Not really. Activision is responsible for the stagnation of the Call of Duty series.
I've finally got to the Yelena fight. And I can't do it. I have no stungun ammo, 1 EMP grenade and don't have typhoon. So I basically have no option but to try and machine pistol her to death. When I can't see her. And when I do see her, she's too busying blowing me up.
I've finally got to the Yelena fight. And I can't do it. I have no stungun ammo, 1 EMP grenade and don't have typhoon. So I basically have no option but to try and machine pistol her to death. When I can't see her. And when I do see her, she's too busying blowing me up.
I loved the first game, everything about it was awesome. I was really surprised when I watched game play. It did really still remind me of the first game. Obviously different but nothing that let me down. I am excited to play this myself and it really does surpass the first game I will probably be glued to my PS3 for awhile.
I've finally got to the Yelena fight. And I can't do it. I have no stungun ammo, 1 EMP grenade and don't have typhoon. So I basically have no option but to try and machine pistol her to death. When I can't see her. And when I do see her, she's too busying blowing me up.
Spoiler:
when you are warned, run away and/or turn a corner to avoid all damage, mantle the wall and shoot at her, if she returns fire, fall back to blind firing, she will run away.
her typhoon has a forward arch you can dodge it by mantle-switching across the openings, being fast, or turning a corner.
Machine pistols are a non issue since she only fires when waiting for typhoon to recharge
I've finally got to the Yelena fight. And I can't do it. I have no stungun ammo, 1 EMP grenade and don't have typhoon. So I basically have no option but to try and machine pistol her to death. When I can't see her. And when I do see her, she's too busying blowing me up.
Spoiler:
Learning my lesson from the first fight, I suckerpunched her with a emp grenade and then timed it to hit her with a gas grenade immediately when the emp ended. During this time, I dumped two boxes of heavy rifle ammo into her. Worked like a charm, and mindless grenade spam FTW.
Melissia wrote:No, actually. My current system can handle almost every game, and it's five years old and only cost slightly more than a brand new PS3 at the time.
Don't start a console war here. That would just be stupid.
The reason I can't afford many games is because I'm a college student who isn't leaching off of her parents, but isntead paying her own way through college.
And you play Wh40k? You are much better off than I was in college, ma'am. Of course, now that I am out of college, I can not complain at all. Also, about the female genderless lead characters, there is not much to say. For some reason most gaming companies find male leads better (of course, it might be easier?). Lucky we have Bioware and Mass Effect. I am really interested to see what happens in Mass Effect 3.
LOOK OVER THERE! I'm changing the subject inconspicuously.
Anyway - I'm playing through on "Give Me Deus Ex" for a no kill, no alarm run.
However, hitting someone with a stun-gun has killed someone (but I still got the 'merciful kill' XP reward) so I'm going to see if this affects the Pacifist achievement.
Wolfun wrote:LOOK OVER THERE! I'm changing the subject inconspicuously.
Anyway - I'm playing through on "Give Me Deus Ex" for a no kill, no alarm run.
I just finished that. And to my great surprise I didn't get pacifist, only the hound one. Basically it seems one stupid clown blown himself near some barrel or was killed by a robot self-destructing. Just great.
Also, remember that kills in the beginning (when you are 100% human) do count.
Second play through now. I happily kill everything in sight even when I'm not supposed to. Hard is really what it's supposed to be. Three pistol shots and you're down, plus the enemies are deadly accurate.
There are many pet peeves I got with the game but it's still the closest thing to the first DeusEx. Liked it very much despite shortcomings. And Final Fantasy XXVII poster made me laugh.
Trying a hard run now, no alarms is the natural method because, for the love of all that is holy, every enemy is firing .50 cal rounds directly into your frontal lobe.
Anyone else find the Final Fantasy XXVII poster? Hopefully they will have the series back on track by then. Personally they would be hard pressed to have 14 more sequels out in the next 16 years!
This trailer has definitive changed my mind about it. Looks better then i expected, because originally my friend told me the entire premise of the game was that its robocop: Guy is hurt bad, people fix him, He kills minorities, roll credits. But in this game i understand its more political minorities while it just so happened they were in robocop.
Might pick it up after i've completed my check list(Space Marine, Dead Island, Battlefield 3, Halo CE remake, Skyrim)
Commisar Von Humps wrote:This trailer has definitive changed my mind about it. Looks better then i expected, because originally my friend told me the entire premise of the game was that its robocop: Guy is hurt bad, people fix him, He kills minorities, roll credits. But in this game i understand its more political minorities while it just so happened they were in robocop.
Might pick it up after i've completed my check list(Space Marine, Dead Island, Battlefield 3, Halo CE remake, Skyrim)
^^ this sums up the game without any spoilers from the point of view of one of the factions and explains most of the main points of conflict in the game
Lord Scythican wrote:Anyone else find the Final Fantasy XXVII poster? Hopefully they will have the series back on track by then. Personally they would be hard pressed to have 14 more sequels out in the next 16 years!
This game sounds very interesting, the storyline sounds fantastic, and I've seen the commercial ad for it on the T.V. a couple of times and I can't get over how heart-wrenching that is.
Since i realised you CAN save at any point i am enjoying the game alot more. I lost a good half hour of play at least a few times due to relying on autosaves the first time round. I would have got my no kills playthrough if i had known that the first time round.
Oh heres a funny observation about the game.
A cloaked shape moves swiftly between cover only to jump out and whack the unfortunate goon. Now uncloaked a ruthless Adam Jensen closes the distance toward his next unsuspecting target. Within tapping distance of the goons shoulder he realises something......
The last thing the goon hears is the sound of a Cyberboost proenergy bar being greedily munched on......
Karon wrote:This game sounds very interesting, the storyline sounds fantastic, and I've seen the commercial ad for it on the T.V. a couple of times and I can't get over how heart-wrenching that is.
In due time, you will be mine Deus-Ex.
There were a few trailers, with were just fantastic. Visuals and story in 3 minute trailer better than typical movie today. They were incredible. Unfortunately the game failed to get equal depth and feel. Still a great game...
Trailer by the OP and this:
followed by this:
Game trailers are awesome lately.. Much batter than games even.. My many YT favourites are game trailers..
Sarif Inudstries site is also great..
Did anyone else think the game might have been a bit rushed or suffer from a slight case of Duke Nukem Syndrome? Believe me I love this game and I am already playing it for a third time through, but it seems like some stuff was a little off.
For example: the busted mirror and all the other mirrors in the game not showing Jensen's reflection. The facial animation looked like something from a few years ago. The scene after the credits was odd, (it showed a character for a second, but then showed a black screen with someone talking for like 30 seconds. I am surprised it wasn't a full motion video that lasted the same length.) Also a lot of the cool full motion video stuff from the trailers looked like it was left out as well.
). I think the soundtrack could be good. Theres nothing else to play till late september. Oh and the hacking looks cool.
fantastic. Visuals and story in 3 minute trailer better than typical movie today. They were incredible. Unfortunately the game failed to get equal depth and feel. Still a great game...