First Deus Ex 3 Screens

[starfish]

I always had a bit of a problem with DX intro BTW:
It reveals too much, too early.

lol-- like how the game tells you right upfront who the mysterious conspirators at the beginning of the game are if you have subtitles on

 

[Angthoron]

It's not necessarily bad. Someone skilled could take advantage of giving the player information that the character is supposed to ignore, for exemple you can only give parts of an event to mislead the player.

It's not necessarily bad, no, it's just that the current level of technology and skill of the designers isn't always enough to convey what is going on by showing. Even the fabled Heavy Rain that's supposed to take character expressions to the next level actually fails to connect the things it shows with the things it's supposed to be telling. Technological and skill-related limitations will be damning the "show, not tell" approach in the gaming industry still for years to come. Therefore, falling back to "tell, not show" to invoke the player's imagination rather than tax his hardware might be a good thing to replace the failing attempt with.

Letting the player discover all on his own can of course be good, but it still relies on letting the player get meaningful information in a meaningful way — it's ironic that Half-Life and especially Half-Life 2, often cited as exemples of this technique, are also terrible at it.

Ah yes, Half-Life. It's rather funny how when I played it the first time I couldn't really understand what's going on. Why is there no adequate security on a miles-large research complex? Why is this scientist surviving better than trained military? Why is the trained military that finally got there killing the remaining survivors? Why are they doing it so poorly? I mean, extract first, butcher right after. Duh. So many questions.

However, yes, from the point of view of "inseparable from player", "half-lifean" approach is definitely an interesting direction that is continuously avoided by an industry that prides itself on "immersion". Games should be more ambiguous, people as such like to have mystery to follow and unravel.

Let's look at a recent example of an "immersion" violation - Dragon Age. The players ends up seeing all sorts of "cool" cutscenes that they would never actually see in person. And then there's the Ferelden Politics cutscenes. What? How do I know what was said there? Was there a spy present? But how did this spy climb right to the Regent's face? What's going on? This is not a novel, people! Oh, and even if it was, that would still be a potentially weak technique.

That's really where it breaks down. You're not supposed to, as a player, know what's going on. Instead of gathering clues, having a spy, talking to the locals etc the player is given super-vision and metaknowledge. Cheap and weak. But we do get to see a cutscene of some people pacing and talking. Wohoo.


@DraQ - thanks!

 

[catfood]

That,
I always had a bit of a problem with DX intro BTW:
It reveals too much, too early.

Yes, I found it to be a very poor intro because of this fact. However I remember the first time when I played it the intro failed to show, or I pressed a key by mistake I can't remember, either way I feel I was lucky not to be spoiled by it. You kinda sorta get a feel who's who while playing but not always, for instance I didn't know Manderley was just a corrupt puppet up until the 747 mission, a thing which is told directly to you during the intro.

 

[ghostdog]

The intro is just right imo. It doesn't reveal too much because guessing that Page and Simons are bad guys would be pretty easy anyway. Also it adds to that clusterfuck feeling of when you watch Simons take over unatco.

 

[Angthoron]

It's not a bad intro, but it does have this one problem, and that is, how do we actually know this is taking place?

Otherwise, it's a good mood-setter for the game (and I actually had the same problem as catfood and missed the intro altogether).

 

[DraQ]

Hmmm, nope. Just right. It's a good exemple of delivery of information the main character isn't supposed to know, especially when you link it to Simons and Page later in the game.

Like at the ending of the in-character training?

You would have to be a complete moron to not make the association with Page before even starting the game proper, at the very least after first entering UNATCO base and reading the datacube on the table, with Simons when you first see him. Way to completely negate your plot twist, Ion Storm.

It's a very bad intro even if superbly directed and executed.

Even when choosing IMO wrong approach of feeding the player out of character knowledge, they should have at least made effort to conceal character identities.

As for Manderley, he was an interesting character. Sure, he was corrupt, but not a WS or Page style bastard or an unquestioning henchman. He just didn't have much options. Of course, he attempted to shoot JC in the back after he tried to leave his office, and this underhanded move most likely resulted in him dying at the hands of JC - an awesome scene and the way to use scripting, BTW - fuck your cutscenes.

 

[ghostdog]

You would have to be a complete moron to not to suspect that Simons and Page are the bad guys even without seeing the intro.

 

[DraQ]

You would have to be a complete moron to not to suspect that Simons and Page are the bad guys even without seeing the intro.

You would have to be a complete moron to not suspect someone in a game with "Question everything. Believe nothing." slogan on the box.

But suspecting doesn't equal being spoon-fed.

 

[Angthoron]

Even when choosing IMO wrong approach of feeding the player out of character knowledge, they should have at least made effort to conceal character identities.

This. If we're out to use a "Selfish bastards damning the world" cliché, we might as well go and use the "Mysterious shady bastards in the dark room" cliché as well, that way there might at least be some surprise at the reveal.

 

[Gragt]

Technological and skill-related limitations will be damning the "show, not tell" approach in the gaming industry still for years to come. Therefore, falling back to "tell, not show" to invoke the player's imagination rather than tax his hardware might be a good thing to replace the failing attempt with.

It's still weird that you people still insist on using the "show" and "tell" terms that are always associated with literature in relation to narration. We're talking video games here, not litterature. And even in that context, rules like "show, don't tell" are simply trite, and believed mostly by wannabe writers who have no clue of what they are doing and the medium they plan to use. It's a stupid rule because a good writer will use both and there is absolutely no need to teach the rookies that they should lock themselves up in some detrimental work process.

Despite being leery of applying the "show" and "tell" concepts to video games, it still comes down that both are equally good, there is no real need to lock the story in only one mode, and what only matters is skill. I agree that there is a general lazyness in the industry and there are very little decent stories there — even less that try to use the medium's strenght — and that includes the games that try to have the player know only the stuff that his character knows.

Way to completely negate your plot twist, Ion Storm.

Is it supposed to be a twist?

You would have to be a complete moron to not suspect someone in a game with "Question everything. Believe nothing." slogan on the box.

Does it mean that you just believed what you read on the box? Anyway that kind of information is superfluous: you should only consider what's present in the game not what is written on the box, what a journalist says about it, what a dev reveals about it, etc.

But suspecting doesn't equal being spoon-fed.

Giving information isn't spoon-feeding. What exactly is revealed during the introduction? And how does it compare to what you discover during the game?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

You would have to be a complete moron to not suspect someone in a game with "Question everything. Believe nothing." slogan on the box.

Does it mean that you just believed what you read on the box?

Is that bad?

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS DUES EX IS OLD SO IT IS GOOD HOW ABOUT YOU STOP BEEING A BUNCH OF SHIT EATERS

BACK THEN THERE WAS NO SUCH THINGS AS CONSOLES AND RTEVIEWS WWEERE HONEST AND ALL ADVERTISING TOLD THE TRUTH AND YOU STILL GOT BLOWJOBS AFTER YOU WERE MARRIED

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

I bought Diablo 2 on launch day, brought it home, and it was a buggy piece of shit. Wouldn't install on one computer (Had a DVD drive which it apparently didn't like as they were the new shit), and my other computer it installed on but didn't support the fake 3D effect. Got pissed off by this, so I took it back to the game store and returned it (BACK IN THE DAY WHEN YOU COULD RETURN PC GAMES) and bought Deus Ex instead, having never heard of it before and just looking at/reading the box.

True story.

 

[BLOBERT]

BRO YOU AND ME ARE SOLE BROTHER I BOUGHT DIABLO 2 AND IT WORKED BUT FUNNY THING IS SOME GUYY AT WORK LENT ME DUES X THEN HE QUIT AND I STILL HAVE THE GAME BUT I NEVER TRIED IT

YOU AND ME ARE BORTHERS FROM ANOTHER MOTHER WE TOTALLY GET EQACHOTHER

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

I LOVE YOU BRO

 

[entertainer]

LOL BROS SORRY FOR INTERUPTTING WTHIS HEATED DISKUSSION

 

[BLOBERT]

BRO HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU BUT YOU ARENT FUNNY

 

[Angthoron]

It's still weird that you people still insist on using the "show" and "tell" terms that are always associated with literature in relation to narration. We're talking video games here, not litterature. And even in that context, rules like "show, don't tell" are simply trite, and believed mostly by wannabe writers who have no clue of what they are doing and the medium they plan to use. It's a stupid rule because a good writer will use both and there is absolutely no need to teach the rookies that they should lock themselves up in some detrimental work process.

Despite being leery of applying the "show" and "tell" concepts to video games, it still comes down that both are equally good, there is no real need to lock the story in only one mode, and what only matters is skill. I agree that there is a general lazyness in the industry and there are very little decent stories there — even less that try to use the medium's strenght — and that includes the games that try to have the player know only the stuff that his character knows.

I actually use it for simplicity of reference. If I were to use different terms for it, or just set out to describe what is being done, it has the potential of being misunderstood or stretch out for several paragraphs. The show/tell dichotomy is known even in the "laymen" circles these days so it's fairly safe to use it and be understood relatively correctly.

What I do mean, though, is that modern gaming industry does not have the technology to easily create imagination-boggling high-tech scenes. Try to imagine someone recreating the flavour text of Master's lair from Fallout, for example - will it have the same delivery power? Why would anyone make a grass carpet of a million fingers just for one encounter?

This is where enormous laziness of the industry kicks in - laziness and, for the lack of a better word, greed. Oh, and stinginess. Instead of creating a single memorable moment they will go and create several hours of bland. Why? Because you can recycle these textures, you can reuse those models. A carpet of fingers? Well. You either spend an enormous sum of money for just a "gimmick" or you spam the grass in several areas (destroying its special "feel") or you just forget about it.

Just like that bit about grass, it's hard to convey emotions and keep the game on budget. Therefore you often end up with tons of concepts that essentially fail to phase the player unless the player is very new to the whole gaming thing (which is where the bets currently are). Now, imagine moving the "hard" parts off-scene, and be told about them, through one means or another, be it hacking into a security log/camera (here's an excuse for poor graphics!), be told about it by another character, finding a letter etc. Which will impress you more? A believable piece of writing or other kind of metafiction, or a poor presentation of an event directly on the scene?

Sure, you can do a great "show only" presentation, but since there's no way to do so cheaply at the moment, the best we can hope for is half-assed renders of emubois with handblades.


Edit: Oh, and as to what you said about show/tell approach to writing, I completely agree. In fact, I'll go to venture that there's a thousand to one ratio of good writers that were ever concerned/aware of show/tell issues. Most people that rant about this stuff in literary circles won't be able to write anything good even if their lives depended on it.

 

[thesheeep]

I like the trailer.
Except those sunglasses. That's just too much.

The dream is a pretty fitting metaphor for what this guy might think/feel. Oh sorry, I just said "feel", didn't want to hurt anyone with that word in connection with a game.

 

[Luzur]

I LOVE HALO

 

[entertainer]

I LOVE COCK

fixed

 

[Rohit_N]

Screenshots from a trailer coming Friday.

 

[Joghurt]

So this game takes place 10-20 years before the original Deus Ex, but the technology is more advanced ? I like how we'll have some generic sci-fi gay ass HALO flying crafts (4th image), but 20 years after this game UNATCOs pilot Jock will be flying a chopper. Makes perfect sense...

 

[JarlFrank]

D3us 3x

 

[Destroid]

Makes perfect sense if they reboot the series like every lame publisher/producer etc who wants to make a buck off a licence but cbf respecting it.