Game News Deus Ex: Mankind Divided Released

[Infinitron]

Tags: Deus Ex: Mankind Divided; Eidos Montreal

Back in 2011, there were many that considered Eidos Montreal's revival of the Deus Ex franchise, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, to be the epitome of the "good for what it is" AAA title. In an era of ever greater streamlining, it was a game that wasn't ashamed to throw walls of text at you in its first five minutes. Its maps were reasonably spacious, the dialogue and atmosphere were decent, and it even had a grid-based inventory. The sins of Invisible War were washed away at last.

But five years later, things have changed. The RPG world is completely different from what it was back then, and Eidos Montreal have spent that time soiling their reputation with games like the Thief reboot and tablet spinoff Deus Ex: The Fall. Ever since it was officially announced last year, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided's impending release has thus been regarded with a certain degree of trepidation. Last week's reviews seemed to confirm that the game was a disappointment, but today, we can finally find out for ourselves whether that feeling was justified. You've already seen the launch trailer, so here's the game's brief description:

The year is 2029, and mechanically augmented humans have now been deemed outcasts, living a life of complete and total segregation from the rest of society.

Now an experienced covert operative, Adam Jensen is forced to operate in a world that has grown to despise his kind. Armed with a new arsenal of state-of-the-art weapons and augmentations, he must choose the right approach, along with who to trust, in order to unravel a vast worldwide conspiracy.​

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is now available for $60 on Steam. There are a couple of crappy $5 item pack DLCs and a $30 Season Pass that promises two The Missing Link-style story DLCs to be released later on, along with the aforementioned item packs and other assorted garbage. People are reporting that the item packs work like microtransactions - you can only bind the items that they include to a single playthrough, and then they're gone. I don't know if that's a standard thing now, but please don't buy them. As for the game itself, that's up for you to decide. In this age of Denuvo I suspect the Codex consensus of Mankind Divided will be a bit slower to form, but we should have a solid opinion to offer eventually.

 

[Licaon_Kter]

Linux and macOS versions? I did ask for this

/sorry, too soon? :D

 

[Ash]

Tags: Deus Ex: Mankind Divided; Eidos Montreal

Back in 2011, there were many that considered Eidos Montreal's revival of the Deus Ex franchise, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, to be the epitome of the "good for what it is" AAA title. In an era of ever greater streamlining, it was a game that wasn't ashamed to throw walls of text at you in its first five minutes. Its maps were reasonably spacious, the dialogue and atmosphere were decent, and it even had a grid-based inventory. The sins of Invisible War were washed away at last.

*Eye twitches*

I think there's some double standards going on here.

All the things you're praising there FO3 had too, or have a comparison that can be drawn (e.g grid-based vs weight-based inventory), except for reasonably good dialogue. So why does FO3 get absolutely slandered on the 'dex for butchering FO while hyper-popamole Human Revolution does not get the same treatment for its butchery of Deus Ex? Heck, HR committed bigger crimes than FO3, e.g it ditched the concept of immersive sim, which are the core principles that defined Deus Ex. It shat on lore harder than FO3 did. It stripped RPG systems while FO's made the transition relatively intact, and last but not least it is packed full with popamole garbage like third person cover and regen health, while FO3 only has a couple of modern retarded mechanics like VATS. HR's systems and mechanics are heavily popamole in general. These points are a matter of fact. Yes, the writing was serviceable while FO3's was laughable, but that's only one point in HR's favor, or two to be generous as these are heavily story-driven games.
Granted, FO3 was turned into a real-time RPG shooter, but it's not like FO's headshot spam combat was a golden example of how it's done.

Either way they both were a notable butchery and are deserving of equal criticism.

And the sins of IW have not been washed away. What, washed away by something that is just slightly less shitty? At least IW was an Immersive Sim.

 

[Ash]

"while FO3 only has a couple of modern retarded mechanics like VATS"

And to be clear, by that I mean it was retarded to have a regenerating time-stopping win button. On paper it could have worked out OK if properly balanced.

 

[RK47]

It's okay cause he likes the game.

 

[Ash]

Him and a sizable portion of the codex, but thankfully not all.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

All the things you're praising there FO3 had too

FO3 had stats, baldur's gate had stats. Same game?

DX:HR (a mediocre story driven linear action game) had very little in common with FO3 (a crappy non-linear pile of ugly garbage).

Either way they both were a notable butchery and are deserving of equal criticism.

DX:HR might have not been anywhere near as good as the original game, but at least it tried to be in the same genre - FPS with RPG elements. FO3 took the game from deep, isometric RPG to shallow FPS.

I wasn't a big fan of HR either, but no way am I going to equate it with FO3.

 

[Ash]

"but at least it tried to be in the same genre - FPS with RPG elements"

That's the thing, it didn't. Deus Ex was an Immersive Sim. And it certainly wasn't a third person cover shooter/sneaker hybrid either.

FO3 > popamole revolution

-better balanced gameplay overall, and more complex and engaging systems.
-an unmistakable lack of modern retarded shit like awesome button takedowns, third person cover shooting/sneaking and regen health.
-More faithful lore.
-Relatively strong Immersive Simulation design. that's right, FO3 is more an immersive sim than Deus Ex: HR is. Note this is not a betrayal of FO as it too has similar design, FO3 just added to it. One of its lead designers was from Looking Glass after all.
-More faithful overall design, except for the big change of turn-based iso gameplay to real time FP of course. It may have gone first person real time, but it brought most things with it e.g stats systems, perks, inventory, locational health, dialogue skill checks and so on.

Note: FO3 is still shit, it's just less shit than Popamole Revolution, except in writing, not that HR was leagues better in that regard either. Human Revolution streamlined a whole heap of content and turned half of it popamole in the process, while FO3 didn't actually do much streamlining. It also ditched some core concepts that defined DX.

Paging Vault Dweller as I suspect he may feel the same way.

Most people actually need to replay DX1 it seems. It's still one of the greatest games of all time.

 

[HoboForEternity]

i agree with infinitron actually. HR didnt touch even the same level as the original, but it is actually quite decent in its own feet.

 

[Ash]

It's not a terrible game, but it is heavily streamlined, horribly unfaithful popamole...moreso than Fallout 3.

So, half of RPG Codex favorably likes unfaithful streamlined popamole.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Deus Ex was an Immersive Sim.

What?

FO3 > popamole revolution

Heh. No.

I can tell further conversation is going to be pointless since you're already making up new words and not even willing to admit that these are two different genres of games. A sandbox game is going to have more to do than a linear story-driven FPS/RPG. It's going to have different gameplay and more complexity in its mechanics. These are are different from the overall quality level of the game: story, polish etc.

And making a game with more modern elements that isn't as good as the original is different from just buying an IP and slapping a "sequel" together as a virtual reskin of one of your other games even though it will have completely different gameplay compared to the originals.

Just imagine Bethesda made DX:HR. Tell me that a Bethesda written game in the Oblivion engine would be better than HR.

Good grief, just the thought of Emil or Todd being anywhere near the writing of a Deus Ex game, let alone seeing it running in Gamebryo. *shudder*

 

[Ash]

"What?"

http://www.giantbomb.com/immersive-sim/3015-5700/

"I can tell further conversation is going to be pointless since you're already making up new words and not even willing to admit that these are two different genres of games."

Ignorance, as evidenced by the fact you could have easily searched the word before claiming I was making shit up.

"and not even willing to admit that these are two different genres of games."

that's a strawman or misunderstanding of what was even written.

"Just imagine Bethesda made DX:HR. Tell me that a Bethesda written game in the Oblivion engine would be better than HR."

Bethesda in their early days were inspired by Ultima Underworld, developed by Looking Glass (the creators of the Immersive Sim), so there is a chance they'd do better job actually, slim as those chances may be.

 

[Cynicus]

Early Bethesda is long gone, turned to dust, blown away. There is no chance that Bethesda in its present form would do Deus Ex justice.

Anyway, I think DXHR is more akin to Thief 3. Both are consolized bastards that will never wear the crown, but each is competent enough in its way to have some merit.

IW was an early casualty of the race for XBoks monies. I'm normally not one of the guys who thinks every old game needs to be remade, on the contrary I wish they would leave them the fuck alone, but IW is one game I would like to see revisited and given proper treatment, assuming proper treatment is even possible today. I think the seeds for a good game are there, though.

 

[Ninjerk]

Deus Ex was an Immersive Sim.

What?

Immersive Sim is what the DX dev team dubbed their creation IIRC.

FO3 > popamole revolution

Heh. No.

I can tell further conversation is going to be pointless since you're already making up new words and not even willing to admit that these are two different genres of games. A sandbox game is going to have more to do than a linear story-driven FPS/RPG. It's going to have different gameplay and more complexity in its mechanics. These are are different from the overall quality level of the game: story, polish etc.

And making a game with more modern elements that isn't as good as the original is different from just buying an IP and slapping a "sequel" together as a virtual reskin of one of your other games even though it will have completely different gameplay compared to the originals.

Is it different from just buying an IP and slapping a "sequel" together as a virtual reskin of Metal Gear Solid? If anything, DX:HR is even more of a cynical cash-in than FO3.

Just imagine Bethesda made DX:HR. Tell me that a Bethesda written game in the Oblivion engine would be better than HR.

Good grief, just the thought of Emil or Todd being anywhere near the writing of a Deus Ex game, let alone seeing it running in Gamebryo. *shudder*

A Bethesda written game in the Oblivion engine would be better than HR.

Spoiler

Just kidding. Fallout rape is seared in my brain in a way Deus Ex could never compare to, and it's probably because Fallout's original content, moreso than Deus Ex in my opinion, is a large part of what made it great. Deus Ex was a philosophical conversation with Sheldon Pacotti with bad systems and good level design.

 

[Ash]

Cynicus: He said Oblivion/FO3 era Bethesda. Indeed today there would be absolutely no chance, the game would be just as streamlined as HR is.

I have no objections to a IW remake, as long as the intent would be to fix the mistake and not just cash in on the DX name. Sadly, Square Enix would never do that. they're EA/Ubisoft tier.

Deus Ex was a philosophical conversation with Sheldon Pacotti with bad systems and good level design.

 

[Dev_Anj]

Codex quandary: Is turning an isometric turn based RPG into a real time first person shooter/RPG worse than turning a first person shooter/RPG hybrid into a first person/third person cover shooter/RPG hybrid? Put that way, the first option sounds worse to the people here, especially since lots of them like turn based systems and isometric views.

 

[Cynicus]

Cynicus: He said Oblivion/FO3 era Bethesda. Indeed today there would be absolutely no chance, the game would be just as streamlined as HR is.

Oblivion/FO3 era Bethesda counts as "present form" in my book.

I have no objections to a IW remake, as long as the intent would be to fix the mistake and not just cash in on the DX name. Sadly, Square Enix would never do that. they're EA/Ubisoft tier.

Yeah, it's not something I would ever expect, nor would I want it from Squeenix/EM. Just a dream. A dream I wouldn't have to have if Eidos hadn't screwed the pooch.

 

[Ash]

Codex quandary: Is turning an isometric turn based RPG into a real time first person shooter/RPG worse than turning a first person shooter/RPG hybrid into a first person/third person cover shooter/RPG hybrid? Put that way, the first option sounds worse to the people here, especially since lots of them like turn based systems and isometric views.

Oh for fuck sake. Do people not look at and judge games as a whole? Do codexers only play one type of game? Clearly, I expect people to use their brain and evaluate all aspects of the games, rather than jump to "muh bethsturd made my FO rel tim, pure shit /thread".

Additionally, any codexer with a valid opinion on the matter (has played both, plus their predecessors) to be able to compare clearly likes first person RPGs, as that's what most of the games being discussed are (along with third person/simulation/stealth and whatever else).

Sorry, but I'm expecting them to judge the games as an overall experience and how much they butchered their predecessors, not based on a single specific change to the game alone (camera perspective or combat timing). Those are certainly things that should be considered as unfaithfulness, but not enough to say "nope, DX:HR is good and FO3 is shit, the end", especially given that DX:HR itself is a real time FP RPG.

 

[Dev_Anj]

Sorry, but I'm expecting them to judge the games as an overall experience and how much they butchered their predecessors, not based on a single specific change to the game alone (camera perspective or combat timing).

I'm pretty sure changing a game systems from "turn based" to "real time" is not "one specific change", it's a change that significantly shakes up how design is approached in the game, and it totally changes the feel of the game. So yes, a Codexer is in the right to dislike a game if it changes from one system to another.

Additionally, any codexer with a valid opinion on the matter (has played both, plus their predecessors) to be able to compare clearly likes first person RPGs, as that's what both the games are (along with third person/simulation/stealth and whatever else).

I know many people who like Deus Ex but hate Oblivion, who like Deus Ex but hate Arx, who like System Shock 2 but hate Deus Ex. Just because two games are from a similar genre doesn't mean they will be liked by people who happened to like a game in said genre, especially if that game was the exception rather than the rule of the genre's quality for them.

 

[Ash]

I'm pretty sure changing a game systems from "turn based" to "real time" is not "one specific change", it's a change that significantly shakes up how design is approached in the game, and it totally changes the feel of the game.

That is still "one specific change" by definition, while I expect people to judge the overall design. All changes can have a influence on the rest of the game. Make the combat and stealth cover-based as in HR and it "significantly shakes up how design is approached in the game", for example.

I know many people who like Deus Ex but hate Oblivion, who like Deus Ex but hate Arx, who like System Shock 2 but hate Deus Ex. Just because two games are from a similar genre doesn't mean they will be liked by people who happened to like a game in said genre, especially if that game was the exception rather than the rule of the genre's quality for them.

Huh? I'm not asking what people liked, I'm asking what decline they think is overall better and more faithfull than the other.

I'm expecting people to judge the overall experience. Not something in particular about that game. Overall sense: The systems, the writing, the level design, how much it butchered the spirit of its predecessor and so on. If they're going to say DX:HR is the better and more faithful game based on FO3's switch from turn-based to real time alone then I don't want to hear their opinion, because that's not evaluating the games in an overall sense.

 

[Dev_Anj]

That is still "one specific change", by definition, while I expect people to judge the overall design. All changes can have a influence on the rest of the game. Make the combat and stealth cover-based as in HR and it "significantly shakes up how design is approached in the game", for example.

It seems like you're ignoring the significance of some design changes over the other. If I made a Deus Ex game that was basically a 3rd person 3D platformer, but it had all the augs and RPG systems of the original, would it still be faithful to the original? Or say, if I made a System Shock 2 sequel where the protagonist shoots magic spells, there are no in game guns and melee weapons and alter the RPG elements to suit that, while keeping other aspects like general stats, implants, reconstruction chambers etc?

 

[Ash]

"If I made a Deus Ex game that was basically a 3rd person 3D platformer, but it had all the augs and RPG systems of the original, would it still be faithful to the original?"

Clearly in the context of RPG systems it would be faithful, yes. That's my point: to determine which is overall better and more faithful we need to look at the individual elements. FO3 is far more faithful than DX:HR overall, an exception being the very significant case of the perspective switch and real time combat.

DX:HR truly took DX and just does whatever the fuck it wanted with it, to the point of making it splinter cell metal gear solid gears of war popamole and giving the lore a middle finger repeatedly. FO3 only did that with the Exploration/progression structure, camera perspective and combat.

 

[Black]

User reviews:
OVERALL:
Mixed(2,225 reviews)


(((Staff))) sure loves promoting garbage.

 

[Dev_Anj]

Breaking down games into their individual components is useful in trying to analyze them, but it doesn't give the whole picture. You're trying to argue how faithful games are by exaggerating the impact of changing some things while downplaying others, and using a numerical comparison of factors to pass your view as objectively right.

Let's actually start comparing Deus Ex to HR, shall we?

Deus Ex has a first person view, HR has too, except it shifts to third person while in cover or in takedowns.
Deus Ex has shooting in first person, HR has shooting in first person and third person.
Deus Ex has augs, so does HR.
Deus Ex has environmental hazards blocking off some paths and bonuses, so does HR.
Deus Ex has sneaking as a viable tactic, so does HR.
Deus Ex has hacking, so does HR.

Compare Fallout 1 to Fallout 3:

Fallout has isometric view, Fallout 3 doesn't.
Fallout has turn based combat, Fallout 3 doesn't.
Fallout doesn't have a level cap, Fallout 3 does.
Fallout has a large variety of enemies, Fallout 3 doesn't in comparison.
Fallout has several settlements throughout the game, Fallout 3 only features 3 throughout.
Fallout doesn't have crafting, Fallout 3 does.

Using this criteria, I could claim that Human Revolution was more faithful to Deus Ex than Fallout 3 was to Fallout.

I don't think any game is more or less faithful, nor that they live up to their predecessor. But claims of one being more faithful than the other based on merely comparing individual elements is not definite nor does it necessarily reflect the true picture.

and giving the lore a middle finger repeatedly.

It could be argued that Fallout 3 does the same too, what with the whole plot point about the GECK and the world being barren 200 years after the war, while in the original and Fallout 2 set earlier it was shown that the world was getting back to its feet.

 

[Invictus]

Holy shit I didnt see this coming guys... The new game is fine, and comparing it in any way, shape or form to Fallout 3 is such a disservice that if it wasnt Ash I would say it was plain old trollling.
Yeah sequels almost never surpassed their predecessors (Thief, System Shock and Baldurs Gate beign exceptions which confirm the rule) but having this Deus Ex game is much much better than most of the venerable franchises got these days and othet than Hitman and the System Shock remake I see little cause to be hopeful for the future