Interview How Deus Ex 3 is redefining the RPG experience

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: Deus Ex: Human Revolution; Eidos Montreal

<p>... and with RPG I mean FPS. With RPG elements. Ideally.</p>
<p>If we've learned one thing from Peter Molyneux it's certainly that redefining things is awesome.</p>
<p>CVG sat down with <span class="text_article_body">Jean François Dugas, lead designer of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, <a href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=263274" target="_blank">for a brief interview</a>.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="text_article_body"><strong>Was there anything about the original game that obviously had to change?</strong><br /><br /> Not really. We didn't want to reproduce the game exactly as it was back then, but rather recreate the aspects in a fresh and new way. We just went in and went back to the first two games, saw what was working well and analysed what would keep the essence of Deus Ex alive but at the same time fit a modern, global audience.<br /><br /><strong>Does that mean hardcore PC gamers can call it 'consolified'?</strong><br /><br /> Absolutely not. I think PC is a great platform, but I think consoles are a great platform, too. Back in the '90s, games on the two platforms were very different, but I think these days it's all about bringing things together - movies, TV, music - they're all converging in the same places for everyone to access. I see it as convergence, and it's the same for games.<br /><br /> We didn't think, 'Oh, it's coming to console; it has to be easy'. We can have a very deep experience, but it's important that if you want to just jump in to it, you can jump in to it. It's not about removing complexity or cutting possibilities: it's about the way the complexity is introduced.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Complexity is only simplicity multiplied - if properly introduced.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.rpgwatch.com/#15774">RPGWatch</a></p>

 

[hal900x]

Possibly the nadir of evasive doublespeak. This man has mastered the art of bullshit.

 

[Gerrard]

Possibly the nadir of evasive doublespeak. This man has mastered the art of bullshit.

 

[SharkClub]

Man, I love pre-release hype. "But it's 100% faithful to the original, even if it's on consoles, we only did it in a different way to appeal to modern console audiences".

Reeks of popamole.

 

[zeitgeist]

Man, I love pre-release hype. "But it's 100% faithful to the original, even if it's on consoles, we only did it in a different way to appeal to modern console audiences".

I believe one of the most important goals of pre-release marketing is to get enough people to not only believe the artificially generated hype so they can repeat it to everyone before the game is released, but to get enough people so hyped up that they still irrationally retain those beliefs even when the game is out (and it's of course nothing like the game that was hyped), so that they'll continue to praise it even if it's objectively horrible, effectively shaping the public opinion from within the public itself.

This, as a general concept, works on all levels, from the biggest AAA to the smallest garage/indie titles.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

so that they'll continue to praise it even if it's objectively horrible,

I swear, these fuckers insist on thinking they like stuff when they really don't

 

[FeelTheRads]

so that they'll continue to praise it even if it's objectively horrible,

I swear, these fuckers insist on thinking they like stuff when they really don't

I'm not sure you are aware of the power of marketing. To put what zeitgeist said even simpler, once a customer has been hyped into buying something they'll generally force themselves to like what they got because they've spent money on it and they want to make it worth.

You probably haven't got through that because you pirate everything.

 

[SharkClub]

I'm not sure you are aware of the power of marketing. To put what zeitgeist said even simpler, once a customer has been hyped into buying something they'll generally force themselves to like what they got because they've spent money on it and they want to make it worth.

"Buyer's remorse", I believe it's called.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Yeah, console wars are basically a big rave where everyone takes buyer's remorse instead of ecstasy.

You probably haven't got through that because you pirate everything.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

 

[Miew]

so that they'll continue to praise it even if it's objectively horrible,

I swear, these fuckers insist on thinking they like stuff when they really don't

I'm not sure you are aware of the power of marketing. To put what zeitgeist said even simpler, once a customer has been hyped into buying something they'll generally force themselves to like what they got because they've spent money on it and they want to make it worth.

You probably haven't got through that because you pirate everything.

Well said. =)

I still try to remain neutral about DE3. Hyping the game up front isn't the most sensible thing to do, but hating it up front isn't either.
While it may not be perfect and it might not have the memorability of DE1, I'm hopeful that DE3 will have a good couple of things that are going to make it enjoyable.

 

[Azrael the cat]

so that they'll continue to praise it even if it's objectively horrible,

I swear, these fuckers insist on thinking they like stuff when they really don't

I'm not sure you are aware of the power of marketing. To put what zeitgeist said even simpler, once a customer has been hyped into buying something they'll generally force themselves to like what they got because they've spent money on it and they want to make it worth.

You probably haven't got through that because you pirate everything.

Sorry, but all psych studies on this (and there have been many) say the EXACT opposite. It's called 'cognitive dissonance' - the feeling of regret consumers get after they make a purchase. Companies in mature industries (cars, softdrink, cigarettes) go to great lengths to keep the marketing effort up long AFTER the purchase is made 'here's a comforting car manual, here's our warranty, here's a free first car service, here's a label reminding you that we put a safety feature right there, don't start regretting that purchase now!'.

The game industry is anything but marketing titans. If they were they'd have never done away with the manuals and other in-box paraphrenalia (remember that cognitive dissonance thing?). Posting that stuff for online purchases would have been even better than including it in the original box: just as cognitive dissonance is REALLY starting to bite, the consumer gets these goodies in the post! And the price drop from excluding manuals and boxes is what, a few dollars? Maybe $5-$10? Hell let's go wild, say $15! Is that REALLY going to be the difference between buying a good game or not? What do people spend going to the movies for 2 hours entertainment? Multiply that by the longer length you get out of a game. And factor in the extra marketing opportunities. And the fact that unless your selling a product that is nearly identical to your competitors (and even the games we call 'clones' in gaming aren't identical in the way that soft-drinks and cigarettes can be), you never EVER want to compete on price.

They get away with incompetence (in marketing, like other areas) because they're still a reasonably undeveloped market, who for structural reasons actually went backwards in the last decade (not talking game quality, talking differentiation - 10 years ago the consoles and PC were aiming at different markets, which is what happens in mature markets: thing is there was still a huge pool of non-gamers out there as gaming was ultra-nerdy and cost you the opportunity for sex, and as that changed the market suddenly grew and in the process reverted to mass-marketing). It doesn't help that there is virtually no quality professional review sources to assist the consumer.

But if game 'hype' was able to convince consumers that they were having fun when they really aren't, then they're achieving something that NO other industry has managed. Sure, advertising can sell you a good to service a seemingly unrelated need (turning cars into sex objects, drinks/cigarettes into identity statements, etc), but they've never ever come close to making people 'think' they like a product.

The whole concept is flawed anyway. I struggle to see how there could be any difference between thinking you like something, and actually liking something (as opposed to liking something, then no longer liking it because your tastes have changed/advanced). And I certainly don't see how a 3rd party could EVER know more accurately whether someone is 'really' liking something than the person himself.

No, game companies get away with consolisation because most people like the kind of ultra-simplified zero-thought entertainment that makes us rage. They get away with it because the average consumer tastes are such that 'Jersey Shore' is a ratings sensation. That stuff won't ever change - we were only shielded from it temporarily because the mainstream wouldn't go near computers until they were forced to for work (wasn't the case when I entered uni), and even then it took another 10 years for gaming to become socially acceptable - I can't emphasise enough just how synonymous gaming was was MEGA-GEEK 20 years back. Hell, even the concept of the 'mega-geek' doesn't really exist anymore, being kind of geeky and tech-headed has its own social cachet; no wonder you guys have difficulty realising why the gaming target audience was so much more intelligent 10-15 years ago.

The difference with other entertainment markets it that they have many more distribution channels and developers than gaming does, and so there's product differentiation. The 'mainstream' in tv and film is as idiotic as in gaming: do you REALLY find it surprising that dumb games top the sales when Michael Bay films do the same? The difference with film/tv/books is that there is a healthy PROFESSIONAL scene aiming at those seeking more intelligent entertainment. THAT'S what we might get back with gaming one day.

 

[zeitgeist]

so that they'll continue to praise it even if it's objectively horrible,

I swear, these fuckers insist on thinking they like stuff when they really don't

It's not about liking or disliking stuff, it's about saying things about the game that are true or untrue. I mean, come on, most of the Codex probably likes at least a few games that aren't objectively that good, for one reason or another. But a cog in the hype machine doesn't sit down, think about the game and realize most of the PR statements were half-truts if not outright lies, they just continue repeating "this game is the first game to introduce X feature to the genre and also it is the game with most complex Y ever", which continues to shape the public opinion about the game long after its release.

It's not impossible to like a game, consider it fun, and realize its faults at the same time. It doesn't have to lead to mass misinformation about said game.

<snip>

Agreeing with most of this post, especially the comparison with other markets and lack of product differentiation. Here's a nightmare inducing scenario: what if the structure of other entertainment markets doesn't represent the once and (hopefully) future structure of the gaming market, what if it's the other way around - what if the current state of the gaming market represents the inevitable end state of all the other markets?

 

[Sick Bum]

so that they'll continue to praise it even if it's objectively horrible,

I swear, these fuckers insist on thinking they like stuff when they really don't

It's not about liking or disliking stuff, it's about saying things about the game that are true or untrue. I mean, come on, most of the Codex probably likes at least a few games that aren't objectively that good, for one reason or another. But a cog in the hype machine doesn't sit down, think about the game and realize most of the PR statements were half-truts if not outright lies, they just continue repeating "this game is the first game to introduce X feature to the genre and also it is the game with most complex Y ever", which continues to shape the public opinion about the game long after its release.

It's not impossible to like a game, consider it fun, and realize its faults at the same time. It doesn't have to lead to mass misinformation about said game.

<snip>

Agreeing with most of this post, especially the comparison with other markets and lack of product differentiation. Here's a nightmare inducing scenario: what if the structure of other entertainment markets doesn't represent the once and (hopefully) future structure of the gaming market, what if it's the other way around - what if the current state of the gaming market represents the inevitable end state of all the other markets?

I agree with this, times about 1000%.

Maybe I look like a massive asshole to seem to pick on games like kotc or aod, but when I see people highfiving the amazing dungeon design of kotc my bullshitmeter goes off the charts. I like kotc but what I like more is reality. Truth. Not inflating reviews on shit you like just because you like it.

The other day I saw an old thread where the vault dweller comes out and says he originally thought the combat of aod was a mere 7 but then after adjustments cranked it up to a 9 I nearly fainted. Not just at the arrogance of rating yourself that way but since then the demo is long since out and I finally gave up on the game really coming out so gave it a try. (now the accusations of butthurt and/or alt will ensue but it's just something I saw). Now maybe aod will be a good game when it comes out, but even a year later the combat is a mess, no one in their right mind could honestly believe it was a 9 when it first came out.

I think a lot of times what people get out of a game is the whole experience, not just playing it but blabbing on forums, and for guys with tens of thousands of internet posts about rpgs little details like having the game be playable or make some kind of sense take a back seat to being able to point to a few handpicked features as being extra special. Like how awesome the beginning of arcanum supposedly was, or how immensely tactically rich kotc is supposed to be, or how whatever it is about aod that's supposed to make it so awesome.

 

[Azrael the cat]

<snip>

Agreeing with most of this post, especially the comparison with other markets and lack of product differentiation. Here's a nightmare inducing scenario: what if the structure of other entertainment markets doesn't represent the once and (hopefully) future structure of the gaming market, what if it's the other way around - what if the current state of the gaming market represents the inevitable end state of all the other markets?

You bastard. Now I can't stop screaming in terror. Every mention of Justin Bieber, every ad for Gossip Girl...it's all enough to get me thinking 'what if zeitgeist is right? What if THIS is where it starts? THIS ad, right here! NOOOOOO!!!!'


Don't be surprised if you read in the papers sometime over the next few months about me getting arrested for trying to assassinate the head of Sony, while foaming at the mouth and mumbling 'zeitgeist said it...zeitgeist said it all'.

 

[Achilles]

No, game companies get away with consolisation because most people like the kind of ultra-simplified zero-thought entertainment that makes us rage.

Exactly, there's really not much else to it. Gaming became mainstream, morons flooded in, publishers cater to their needs.

There may be hope for the future though. Digital distribution has helped a lot of smaller studios and indies to get to the virtual "store front" and be exposed to some publicity, while keeping costs down.

 

[Quilty]

 

[commie]

Amazing! This is actually in a mainstream 'propaganda for the big companies' magazine?

 

[Noceur]

Photoshop'd?

 

[DraQ]

first two games

Then again:

Was there anything about the original game that obviously had to change? Not really. We didn't want to reproduce the game exactly as it was back then, but rather recreate the aspects in a fresh and new way. We just went in and went back to the first two games, saw what was working well and analysed what would keep the essence of Deus Ex alive but at the same time fit a modern, global audience. Does that mean hardcore PC gamers can call it 'consolified'? Absolutely not. I think PC is a great platform, but I think consoles are a great platform, too. Back in the '90s, games on the two platforms were very different, but I think these days it's all about bringing things together - movies, TV, music - they're all converging in the same places for everyone to access. I see it as convergence, and it's the same for games. We didn't think, 'Oh, it's coming to console; it has to be easy'. We can have a very deep experience, but it's important that if you want to just jump in to it, you can jump in to it. It's not about removing complexity or cutting possibilities: it's about the way the complexity is introduced.

I would be more forthcoming towards convergence, if it wasn't toward reality warping crappiness.


Sounds like

Do not want.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

pic

Hahaha amazing. I don't know if it's a stealth critic or genuine praise for taking the control from the player and turning the game into that thing you watch while kicking back and drinking a coffee...."movie", I believe.

edit: I also like how interesting that wall on the second pic seems - the guard is staring so intensely at it

 

[Vault Dweller]

The other day I saw an old thread where the vault dweller comes out and says he originally thought the combat of aod was a mere 7 but then after adjustments cranked it up to a 9 I nearly fainted. Not just at the arrogance of rating yourself that way but since then the demo is long since out and I finally gave up on the game really coming out so gave it a try.

So, you've registered several accounts to fight the good fight, bitching about me in almost every post. And in your spare time you go and read my year old posts, feeding your hate lest it burn less bright? Kinda sick, don't you think?

Now maybe aod will be a good game when it comes out, but even a year later the combat is a mess...

If you say so. You sound like a very knowledgeable guy.

I think a lot of times what people get out of a game is the whole experience, not just playing it but blabbing on forums, and for guys with tens of thousands of internet posts about rpgs little details like having the game be playable or make some kind of sense take a back seat to being able to point to a few handpicked features as being extra special. Like how awesome the beginning of arcanum supposedly was, or how immensely tactically rich kotc is supposed to be, or how whatever it is about aod that's supposed to make it so awesome.

You do realize that I'm not the only guy who thinks that KotC is a tactical game, right? I barely made 2-3 posts about the game while the Codex has been raving about it for awhile.

 

[MetalCraze]

fit a modern, global audience.

I feel outdated

 

[Kingston]

Absolutely not. I think PC is a great platform, but I think consoles are a great platform, too. Back in the '90s, games on the two platforms were very different, but I think these days it's all about bringing things together - movies, TV, music - they're all converging in the same places for everyone to access. I see it as convergence, and it's the same for games.

Wrong. The PS3 was all about converging shit into a home media extravaganza box and it tanked. The Wii is all about being a gaming box and nothing more, and it is the current champion. The cinematic games that try to converge movies and games fail, and the arcade games sell like mad. Sales don't bend to bullshit.

Somehow the smaller crowd of "hardcore" gamers are the "modern, global audience" that don't want that pesky gameplay getting in the way of their cinematic experience. Games on the Wii are selling 20+ million copies, that is the real "modern, global audience" and funnily enough the games that sell that much have one thing in common: they are no nonsense games with no cinematic bullshit. So if the developers of DE3 wanted to sell as many copies as possible, which would be a better approach: Adding more cinematic elements at the cost of gameplay, or focusing on the gameplay at the cost of all that fluff.

You see, why would you do that? Why do you want to take control away from the player? Why can't I make those kick-ass moves? Imagine if in Max Payne you picked your targets and then there was an animation where Max jumps in bullet-time and takes everyone out while you watch. That'd be real fun, eh.

 

[Grunker]

zeitgeist, you should look up the definition of objective.

Also, I'm losing faith in this game. Fuck that marketing stuff sounds horrible

 

[Coyote]

I'm not sure you are aware of the power of marketing. To put what zeitgeist said even simpler, once a customer has been hyped into buying something they'll generally force themselves to like what they got because they've spent money on it and they want to make it worth.

You probably haven't got through that because you pirate everything.

Sorry, but all psych studies on this (and there have been many) say the EXACT opposite. It's called 'cognitive dissonance' - the feeling of regret consumers get after they make a purchase.

Technically correct, but that's not the full story. The term "cognitive dissonance" itself describes what you're talking about, but the vast majority of the time it comes up among psychologists, it's being discussed in the context of what generally results from such dissonance: rationalization, or changing your opinions/thoughts/attitudes about something (usually an act you've committed or a choice you've made) in order to reduce dissonance with your existing beliefs or sense of self-consistency. The reason that the term was coined in the first place was to help explain why participants in experiments on choice would display the odd tendency to have better attitudes towards something they had paid a great deal for than other participants who had paid less for the exact same thing.

Dissonance produces discomfort and, correspondingly, there will arise pressures to reduce or eliminate the dissonance. Attempts to reduce dissonance represent the observable manifestations that dissonance exists. Such attempts may take any or all of three forms. The person may try to change one or more of the beliefs, opinions, or behaviors involved in the dissonance; to acquire new information or beliefs that will increase the existing consonance and thus cause the total dissonance to be reduced; or to forget or reduce the importance of those cognitions that are in a dissonant relationship.

A sort of inverse example of this occurs in what's probably the most famous cognitive dissonance experiments: participants engaged in an extremely boring task for an hour and then were paid either a large amount or a small amount to describe to people they believed to be other participants in the same study (but who were really confederates of the experimenter) how exciting and satisfying it was. Participants who were given a larger amount of money to do this rated their excitement and satisfaction with the task lower than participants who were paid very little to do so. The idea is that participants who were paid less, in order to reduce cognitive dissonance associated with lying to other "participants", convinced themselves that the task was more interesting than it actually was; participants who were paid more had less dissonance to begin with as they had more ample reason to lie, so they didn't need to change their attitudes towards the experiment [as much] to compensate.

Similarly, other cognitive dissonance studies have shown that people who are asked to write essays contrary to their own beliefs will provide more justifications in their essays and be more sympathetic to the perspectives they are asked to write from when paid a small amount as opposed to a large amount; that people who pay more for new cars will come up with more reasons to explain their purchases and be more satisfied than people who pay less; and so on, mostly replicating these results in other contexts.

So what FeelTheRads wrote - the part about forcing oneself to like something after spending money on it, not the part about the power of marketing, which is related to a whole bunch of other cognitive theories* - is actually a closer representation of cognitive dissonance theory than what you wrote.

* Mostly fluency effects, such as the availability heuristic and mere exposure effect, but also things like confirmation bias and framing.

Fake edit: Wikipedia really needs to get rid of all the parentheses in their URLs.

Real edit:

But if game 'hype' was able to convince consumers that they were having fun when they really aren't, then they're achieving something that NO other industry has managed. Sure, advertising can sell you a good to service a seemingly unrelated need (turning cars into sex objects, drinks/cigarettes into identity statements, etc), but they've never ever come close to making people 'think' they like a product.

It's not so much a matter of making people think they like something that they do not, as it is making people like (to the point of drooling over every news release and set of screens to come out) something that they would not have otherwise liked. There are hundreds of studies demonstrating that:

(a) People are often unaware of the existence of a behavioral response to a stimulus.
(b) People are frequently unaware of any change in attitude that has occurred. For example, in the essay-writing study I mentioned, although people's self-described and -rated attitudes pre-essay were different than their attitudes post-essay, they believed that their attitudes remained unchanged.
(c) When aware of a change, people are still often mistaken about the influence a stimulus has had on them and will commonly misattribute it to something else.
(d) People are generally bad affective forecasters; they commonly mispredict how choices and/or outcomes will make them feel.
(e) People are incredibly inconsistent decision-makers. (Probably more like thousands of studies on this point. I once took an entire course on decision-making that was pretty much a step-by-step dismantling of all the basic assumptions of utility theory.)

Reading such studies, it also quickly becomes clear that it is very easy to manipulate people's preferences, feelings, beliefs, and choices without their awareness. Again, it's not so much a matter of making them think they like something that they do not; it's more that you can influence their preferences such that they come to like something that they otherwise would not have liked. Obviously there are limitations; you're not going to make a hard-line Codexer who hates all things popamole suddenly decide that the next Gears of War clone is the best game ever. But you can definitely push some people into developing a taste, desire, and sometimes even need (as they perceive it, at least) for something that they would not have had if not exposed to your advertising.

It's actually rather depressing; you literally have studies on propaganda/advertising where psychologists will directly tell people, "The following sentence is a patently false," and come back a week later to find that they're more likely to believe it thanks to the way the brain responds to fluent stimuli.