Deus Ex Deus Ex: Mankind Divided Pre-Release Thread

[DosBuster]

lol remember when the extremist-sjws freaked out at mechanical aparthied and went on about how edios was a white studio. then it turned out the term was coined by an asian and a black guy

 

[Ash]

Super Mario Bros is clearly the best Deus Ex game

Indeed. Deus Ex itself is a "on-rails shooter", apparently, when even SMB doesn't qualify as on-rails due to its occasional branching paths and secret areas.

It's impossible to make Kodex Konsensus approved sequel to a game if they will suck either by ''forcing'' the same gameplay as original or not having exactly the same gameplay as original.

No, just don't have inferior gameplay, or inferior game design in general rather.

 

[Gnidrologist]

It will never happen. It will be inferior because... it's not carbon copy of original game/it is carbon copy of original game/reasons. Like ''ooooh, i dun liek Jensen's voice'' or some crap. It's especially obvious, when you remember all the megathreads about Fallou1 vs Fallout2. War never changes. Especially on Codex.

 

[SwiftCrack]

As far as I read now (wasn't on the 'Dex when the actual game came out) DXHR isn't vilified here though.

Especially not as much as Fallout 3 versus 1/2.

 

[Gnidrologist]

It's not, but it still gets nitpicked on for a lot of wrong reasons, while similar flaws of original are often omitted. Reading some posters (cue Ash) though, one could get an impression it's almost as crappy a sequel as F3.

 

[Love]

It's not, but it still gets nitpicked on for a lot of wrong reasons, while similar flaws of original are often omitted. Reading some posters (cue Ash) though, one could get an impression it's almost as crappy a sequel as F3.

But that's not really the reason you have those ongoing discussions about the original game in a thread dedicated to the prequel. There is no problem with pointing out flaws in the original and there is nothing wrong with doing the same to the new games. However your critic always seems to start of by simply picking up recent criticism and excusing it with features from the original game. We have been over this months ago before but this routine is getting more and more desperate and since the original game is getting close to its 16th birthday, I'm still asking what is the point?

When some big pharmaceutical company releases a new version of its drug over fifteen years after its first introduction to the market and instead of causing nausea it is now causing diarrhea and dizzy spells as side effects, how would the customers react? Do you think they would be happily taking the new drug without complaints? Let's assume it would cause no dizzy spells and only diarrhea would be left as side effect to complain about. Would the people be grateful for others to counter their complaints by simply pointing out the nausea caused by the preceding drug? Of course not. It's a zero sum game for everyone effected.

Human Revolution is probably the best and most modernized version of a Deux Ex game the market is capable to produce now. I always thought from some of the interviews about the original game that the guys around Warren Spector got real lucky with their attempt since some magic stars must have aligned due its development to let all those crazy ideas fell into place so fittingly. But they benefited from the experience of developing games like this before and they had the necessary culture in their studio.
Eidos-Montreal doesn't have that and so their version of the game came with immersion breaking popamole gameplay, unimaginative equipment and a cheap copy of the original story that they even ended with one of the most criticized components of the original Deux EX. It is the best we could get which is exactly the cause for disappointment. One had hoped development would have gone forward by exterminating weaknesses after 11 years.

 

[T. Reich]

One had hoped development would have gone forward by exterminating weaknesses after 11 years.

You see that in modern software much?

Also, your "big pharmaceutical company releases a new version of its drug" analogy falls apart the moment you consider that Eidos Montreal is NOT the same company as Ion Storm, and DX:HR is NOT a direct sequel to DX but rather than spiritual with the same name.

So, correcting your analogy - a totally different big pharmaceutical company (with a radically different research team as well) releases an alternative drug for the same disease over fifteen years after the first known drug's introduction. It has superficial similarities (cures the same symptoms etc) but it's very different in terms of pharmacokinetics. It works on the body differently, causing different possible side effects. The end result is the same - the itch is scratched, but it's not exactly the same thing as old one, so some people will have issues with taking the new drug. And some won't because it works exactly how they would like it to, no visible side effects and such.

What I'm saying it is DX:HR did a pretty good job at recreating DX sensibilities in a modern age, but it is not (and could not) be another DX. Definitely not technologically, because DX was in big part a product of the technologies that were available at a time, and so is DX:HR. Some things got lost in the last 15 years, and some that worked back then don't work today anymore, for a number of reasons. And some of them that still work today would not be accepted by the publisher/modern players.

 

[Love]

You see that in modern software much?

I have seen it before.

Also, your "big pharmaceutical company releases a new version of its drug" analogy falls apart the moment you consider that Eidos Montreal is NOT the same company as Ion Storm, and DX:HR is NOT a direct sequel to DX but rather than spiritual with the same name.

You are right. If one were to apply those adjustments than it's a different analogy and if you read my post you would see that I have addressed the problem with the studio culture separately.
However we still get Eidos publishing the game under the label Deus Ex.

So, correcting your analogy - a totally different big pharmaceutical company (with a radically different research team as well) releases an alternative drug for the same disease over fifteen years after the first known drug's introduction.

Now this is where you can see the limits as to how far you can take an analogy. Drug companies may hire radically different research teams but their goals stay the same. If your analogy would have introduced architects or designers instead of doctors and scientists than it would have made more sense since you would hire them because you expect their solution to be different.
For your case you also would have to assume that the research team would have ignored all the knowledge that has been gathered since the release of the original drug and they never had contact to the people from the former research time.
In my personal opinion this "radically different research team" based in Montreal hasn't tried to cure a disease. It tried to copy a drug and failed but I am afraid we are getting too hung up on analogies here. I just think no matter what happens in research behind closed doors the reaction of the users of the original drug would remain very simple: "I didn't ask for this."

 

[Average Manatee]

Also, you don't get double xp in Deus Ex for going nonlethal.

Actually it was 3x IIRC in DXHR, and yes it was the dumbest shit that railroads you into a non-lethal playthrough unless you are roleplaying someone who goes out of their way to kill people for basically no reason.

For all the complaints about cover shooting and all that jazz it kind of became irrelevant when you realized that after being detected the optimum play was simply bum rushing enemies and doing cinematic non-lethal takedowns for 5-6x the normal kill XP.

 

[Spectacle]

XP for combat is just a plain bad idea!

 

[Ruhfuss]

Of course, but Human Revolution still comes off as a game that was made with a checklist at hand, like they had a very specific game in mind and then added stuff to it so that it ticks all the "Deus Ex" boxes (conspiracies, the choice between combat and stealth, "boss fights" against augmented opponents, a number of different endings etc.). As a result it comes off a bit forced, with the levels being more like enhanced augmented corridors rather than being open in a way that feels natural, with the bosses being tacked-on and out-of-place, the endings coming down to just pushing a button, and so on.

SCNR

 

[serch]

Should be renamed to Manhood split and be about a post op tranny. Beat that, Beatdog

 

[Love]

Should be renamed to Manhood split and be about a post op tranny. Beat that, Beatdog

You just know that there gonna beat off to that.

 

[Lhynn]

XP for combat is just a plain bad idea!

Up to the game.

 

[Llama-Yak Hybrid]

Human Revolution was so shit and people are so obsessed about MD that they've already filled the thread with 67 pages, what the hell is happening here?

 

[Jaedar]

Human Revolution was so shit and people are so obsessed about MD that they've already filled the thread with 67 pages, what the hell is happening here?

Joined: Apr

are you serious? Whose alt is this? There's no way an actual new member gets a dumbfuck tag this fast.

 

[Infinitron]

are you serious? Whose alt is this? There's no way an actual new member gets a dumbfuck tag this fast.

The title under his name is a hint.

 

[an Administrator]

Human Revolution was so shit and people are so obsessed about MD that they've already filled the thread with 67 pages, what the hell is happening here?

Deus Ex HR was good. Not as good as the original, but it was fine. Kill urself, Sheep

 

[Prime Junta]

Human Revolution was so shit and people are so obsessed about MD that they've already filled the thread with 67 pages, what the hell is happening here?

Deus Ex HR was good. Not as good as the original, but it was fine. Kill urself, Sheep

No it wasn't

You play as a good corporate lackey until the very end, where you get to choose between two psychotics or your benevolent corporate benefactor, or mass murder.

That's kind of the diametrical opposite of what DX is all about.

(Also the gameplay sucked. The original was all about finding different ways to deal with challenges and playing with lots of different toys. DX:HR was about figuring out the incentives built into the system and then mechanically repeating the "best" actions. The fact that gunplay was better executed is not a redeeming quality.)

 

[Llama-Yak Hybrid]

Seriously I've dropped this shit after like 4 hours, it's worse game than Alpha Protocol and Mass Effect.

And then people think I'm wrong when I say that codex is becoming popamole hive.

 

[an Administrator]

it's worse game than Alpha Protocol

It has much better gameplay than AP.

 

[Llama-Yak Hybrid]

It's so bad that I haven't noticed difference anyway.

 

[Gnidrologist]

And here we go again.

 

[Ruhfuss]

DX:HR was about figuring out the incentives built into the system and then mechanically repeating the "best" actions.

Which translated into "Do non-lethal silent takedown (ideally x2), repeat" for max XP. So if you want to develop your char, the game dictates which kind of approach is "the best" by giving the highest reward if the player is a nice puppy and does as he's supposed to.

True freedom of choice would mean, the player would receive the same amount of XP for solving a given problem, no matter how.

Simple example: Objective - Get item from place X

Possible Solutions:

a) kill everybody and their dogs
b) sneak in through sewers (silent approach one)
c) get in from the roof (silent approach two)
d) hacking
e) talking
f) seduction
g) tranquilize every living being

As long as the objective is met, each possible solution should give the same reward, with penalties only if the quest specifically asked not to do XYZ and the players fails to achieve that.

Meaningful C&C would have the environment reacting differently to each approach.

The original was all about finding different ways to deal with challenges and playing with lots of different toys.

Unfortunately, the original failed as well, but in a different way. Instead of giving a reward for an approach like from above, it often gave simply fixed XP for reaching a location that would lead on to a path to the solution of the problem, multiple times. You get to the roof, you get XP. You go into the sewers, you get XP. You don't get (max) XP for completing your objective, but just for being nosy.

 

[an Administrator]

Fix your quotes