Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The bosses are there to show you, sometimes you really don't have a choice; its either kill or be killed.

daedalus wrote:

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

daedalus wrote:

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

daedalus wrote:It was VERY Square Enix.

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.

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).

because you are wrong? ~_^

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.

Lol at the end of the game



I found the ending i had was quite moving and inspiring.

EDIT: Now for playthrough 2, time to bust out the FAQ and completely 'strip mine' the game. Will also actually read the emails/ebooks this time lol.

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:

Grundz wrote:because you are wrong? ~_^

No, I'm not.

How many devs have you worked for? because I'm guessing less than I, somewhere around zero.

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:

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?

Again, PC games. Neither of them have any.

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.

Melissia wrote: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.

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.

Just finished the game, ending was pretty cool, altho the buttons... hmm.

The PC controls were a bit wonky, but thankfully they're remappable. Like cover being on M2, and iron sights on MMB. Just swapped those two.

Shame you can't turn crouch and iron sights toggle off, I'd rather just have push and release.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Melissia wrote: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.

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.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Melissia wrote: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.

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 am afraid typhoon is a must for all but the first and final boss fight.

Cerebrium wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

There are weapon lockers all around the room.

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.

Cerebrium wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

Cerebrium wrote:

Spoiler:

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.