Review Deus Ex: Mankind Divided Launch Trailer and Reviews

[Whisper]

http://truepcgaming.com/2013/04/11/deus-ex-human-revolution-retrospect-interview/

"In retrospect, I think our game is a tad too hard on normal difficulty. It was quite a challenging game to balance. Our first pass at game balancing was too permissive. Players were playing the game like a typical run & shoot action game. Players weren’t using tactics, let alone their augmentations. It was tricky to find that sweet spot where the game is hard enough that you want to think and use your tools a little bit more, while still allowing the FPS vets to have fun with combat itself. Unfortunately, the game ended up being too punitive for some. If I could go back, I’d tone it down a bit, all over the place (AI, more consumables all in all, redesigned bosses, etc.)."

This is LAME.

 

[Metro]

There are no hubs? Those reviews make it sound like a string of linear levels.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Why do you always have to dash hopes Vault Dweller?

 

[Elhoim]

I was considering pre-ordering, but it's definitely Steam Sale material.

 

[Kem0sabe]

There are no hubs? Those reviews make it sound like a string of linear levels.

From the videos I got the impression Prague was the only hub.

 

[Ash]

Why do you always have to dash hopes Vault Dweller?

Deus Ex deserves better than "good for what it is" popamole.

 

[Jack]

U CAN'T KILL PROGRESS!!11!11

 

[imweasel]

There are no hubs? Those reviews make it sound like a string of linear levels.

From the videos I got the impression Prague was the only hub.

There is more than one hub, but they are all based in Prag.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

You do leave room for exceptions, I hope!

Come on now. Community patches and mods may have saved F:NV from obscurity, but those are release reviews, and release F:NV was a clusterfuck.

 

[Daedalos]

You review the Shitcher 3, which is the definition of popamole fantasy action FPS with light RPG elements, but refuse to review Deus Ex, which is even more an RPG than most of the other reviews in that genre?

I would like to meet this Yu, that you speak of, he seems an interesting character.

I preordered this, but the meh reception from media makes me consider canceling it. 7/10 more of the same from the shill brigade does not inspire any confidence.

Except it's actually a 84/100 and 81/100 average on metacritic and opencritic, not really a 7/10. But sure.

http://opencritic.com/game/1812/deus-ex-mankind-divided

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/deus-ex-mankind-divided

A AAA title getting 81-84 means it's shit and no matter how much the media wants to give it 12/10, they really can't.

If I'm reading the reviews correctly, it seems that:

- the game is very easy on Hard, which isn't really a big deal these days, but it does fuck up a game where using different tools to deal with the obstacles is a major feature
- the first mission is well designed, the rest is formulaic and uninspiring shit
- steal is OP and removes what little challenge the game has.

You are possibly right, but I still reserve my judgement for my own playthrough, and I think you're overgeneralizing. I'm not saying the criticism isn't accurate and valid, but a game like this getting polarizing reviews, but still somewhat high overall, still makes me think the game has really great moments in there.

Also there are several other examples of complete shit games getting top grades, so I dunno. I see a lot of p. great AAA games on the metacritic in the 80-87ish range dating back to 2012 or so, that I had fun with.

I'll see for myself come tuesday, though.

 

[J_C]

You review the Shitcher 3, which is the definition of popamole fantasy action FPS with light RPG elements, but refuse to review Deus Ex, which is even more an RPG than most of the other reviews in that genre?

I would like to meet this Yu, that you speak of, he seems an interesting character.

I preordered this, but the meh reception from media makes me consider canceling it. 7/10 more of the same from the shill brigade does not inspire any confidence.

Except it's actually a 84/100 and 81/100 average on metacritic and opencritic, not really a 7/10. But sure.

http://opencritic.com/game/1812/deus-ex-mankind-divided

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/deus-ex-mankind-divided

A AAA title getting 81-84 means it's shit and no matter how much the media wants to give it 12/10, they really can't.

If I'm reading the reviews correctly, it seems that:

- the game is very easy on Hard, which isn't really a big deal these days, but it does fuck up a game where using different tools to deal with the obstacles is a major feature
- the first mission is well designed, the rest is formulaic and uninspiring shit
- steal is OP and removes what little challenge the game has.

You are possibly right, but I still reserve my judgement, and I think you're overgeneralizing. I'm not saying the criticism isn't accurate and valid, but a game like this getting polarizing reviews, but still somewhat high overall, still makes me think the game has really great moments in there.

Also there are several other examples of complete shit games getting top grades, so I dunno. I see a lot of p. great AAA games on the metacritic in the 80-87ish range dating back to 2012 or so, that I had fun with.

I'll see for myself come tuesday, though.

Of coures you had fun with those games. VD's statement that AAA games in the 80s are shit is just wrong. I mean, I'm sure we could list the fun AAA games which got 85% all day long. Prince of Persia Warrior Within, Darksiders 2, Hitman Absolution, BattleField Bad Company, May Payne 3, Battlefield3 and so on. They are not perfect games, but not shit games by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Ash]

What a cuckold. At least three of those are absolute garbage.

 

[J_C]

Shrugs, personal preference is subjective.

 

[Ash]

Shrugs, personal preference is subjective.

Nah. Popamole is measurably shit: less content, content that is there is inconsistent/dumb/cut for DLC, etc.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm not saying the criticism isn't accurate and valid...

Well, that's the central point, isn't it? If the criticism is valid, the game is shit not very good.

... but a game like this getting polarizing reviews, but still somewhat high overall, still makes me think the game has really great moments in there.

First, the reviews aren't polarizing. Some reviews say the game has these flaws and other reviews don't mention these flaws at all and pretend they don't exist, so we don't get conflicting opinions. Second, if our experience teaches us anything is that reviews blindly praising a AAA game and forgetting to mention the flaws doesn't really mean that the game has really great moments, aside from really awesome visuals.

Also there are several other examples of complete shit games getting top grades, so I dunno. I see a lot of p. great AAA games on the metacritic in the 80-87ish range dating back to 2012 or so, that I had fun with.

You assume that all AAA games are the same but they are not. Take Bloodlines, for examples. Very enjoyable, 80 on metacritics, but it wasn't a high profile release and the marketing budget was very modest. In comparison Half Life 2 was the high profile release of the year, released at the exact same time, and the media went all out embracing it - 96/100 overall, 31(!) 100/100 reviews, nearly 40 95-99/100 reviews. That's a proper and expected way to rate a high profile release, unless the game in question is so painfully bad that the media can't pretend that it's a flawless masterpiece. A recent example of the latter is Fallout 4 - 84/100.

 

[DeepOcean]

Fallout 4 isn't much worse than Fallout 3, on some aspects it is better even, the media sometimes feeds on the very same hype they create, they wanted Fallout 4 to be a technological revolution and be a "Next Gen" experience like they think Fallout 3 and Skyrim were for the Xbox 360 (They are hunting for this so called next gen experience, the game to end all hype for sometime.), when it failed the hype and just brought the same old Fallout 3 with a few new bells and whistles and a shiny coat of paint, they got pissed off. Fallout 3 and 4 are pretty much close in terms of popamole gameplay but Fallout 4 got terrible grades because it failed to be the next "jump" the media expected.

You could claim Fallout 4 got terrible grades because it was creatively bankrupt but not for it being a far worse game. I dunno, most reviewers are aesthetic minded creatures, they care less to mechanics and objective things, the game could be the most terrible shit in the world in mechanics but if it attended their subjective preferences and personal hype, it would get a 9.6. I don't think if Mankind Divided were less popamole than HR, those guys would give it better grades for it. I think the reason of the bad grades is that they think this game is creatively bankrupt as they did with Fallout 4.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Fallout 4 isn't much worse than Fallout 3, on some aspects it is better even, the media sometimes feeds on the very same hype they create, they wanted Fallout 4 to be a technological revolution and be a "Next Gen" experience like they think Fallout 3 and Skyrim were for the Xbox 360 (They are hunting for this so called next gen experience, the game to end all hype for sometime.), when it failed the hype and just brought the same old Fallout 3 with a few new bells and whistles and a shiny coat of paint, they got pissed off. Fallout 3 and 4 are pretty much close in terms of popamole gameplay but Fallout 4 got terrible grades because it failed to be the next "jump" the media expected.

You could claim Fallout 4 got terrible grades because it was creatively bankrupt but not for it being a far worse game. I dunno, most reviewers are aesthetic minded creatures, they care less to mechanics and objective things, the game could be the most terrible shit in the world in mechanics but if it attended their subjective preferences and personal hype, it would get a 9.6. I don't think if Mankind Divided were less popamole than HR, those guys would give it better grades for it. I think the reason of the bad grades is that they think this game is creatively bankrupt as they did with Fallout 4.

I beg to differ. Fallout 3 was kinda 'good for what it is', typical Bethesda sandbox game with stats and skills. Fallout 4 was fucking awful, ruined by the retarded focus on settlements and crafting, a misguided attempt to merge two genres.

 

[DeepOcean]

I beg to differ. Fallout 3 was kinda 'good for what it is', typical Bethesda sandbox game with stats and skills. Fallout 4 was fucking awful, ruined by the retarded focus on settlements and crafting, a misguided attempt to merge two genres.

Still, even if you think that, do you think the average reviewer care that much about stats and skills to give a bad score for it? For most people, Fallout 3 was a game to collect stuff and kill shit and for most people, Fallout 4 remains that. People cared much more about the shitty implementation of Minecraft some because it wasn't all that fleshed out, and others, because they were too lazy to bother, very, very few reviewers even noticed or paid much attention for the lack of skills and stats.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Fallout 3 was kinda 'good for what it is'

Who are you, and what have you done with the real VD.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I beg to differ. Fallout 3 was kinda 'good for what it is', typical Bethesda sandbox game with stats and skills. Fallout 4 was fucking awful, ruined by the retarded focus on settlements and crafting, a misguided attempt to merge two genres.

Still, even if you think that, do you think the average reviewer care that much about stats and skills to give a bad score for it? For most people, Fallout 3 was a game to collect stuff and kill shit and for most people, Fallout 4 remains that. People cared much more about the shitty implementation of Minecraft some because it wasn't all that fleshed out, and others, because they were too lazy to bother, very, very few reviewers even noticed or paid much attention for the lack of skills and stats.

Since the early days, the most basic RPG loop was kill monsters, gain better items and XP, level up, kill bigger monsters to gain even better items and more XP. Blizzard distilled it to perfection and it worked great in every Bethesda RPG until Fallout 4 because they finally went too far and gutted the RPG core completely.

Sure, +20 to skill perk might not be that different from a manual skill increase, but it's better to let the player to increase a skill 20 times, 1 point at a time, then force him to gain 10 levels to unlock the next perk. So basically one of the core activities - distributing points on level up - was removed from the game. Loot acquisition was equally underwhelming and I'd say it worked much better in Fallout 3 where you could find different upgrade items and apply then. Now you find useless shit everywhere, carry at home, then use to build better guns. You can't do it right away either, because you need the right perks which you can't get, until you gain 20+ levels.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Fallout 3 was kinda 'good for what it is'

Who are you, and what have you done with the real VD.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081202033348/http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

"It’s a good and entertaining action RPG provided you can ignore the fact that it was supposed to be a Fallout game and mentally block that aspect of it, and if you can do the same about the silly “amusement park” setting. ... Compared to the first two Fallout games, Fallout 3 is a pale imitation that may anger many fans of the original games. However, comparing Fallout 3 to similar games like Morrowind, Oblivion, Gothic, Two Worlds, Assassins Creed, etc presents a much more favourable reaction. I think that it’s the best game Bethesda have produced since the Daggerfall days ..."

 

[Daedalos]

I'm not saying the criticism isn't accurate and valid...

Well, that's the central point, isn't it? If the criticism is valid, the game is shit not very good.

... but a game like this getting polarizing reviews, but still somewhat high overall, still makes me think the game has really great moments in there.

First, the reviews aren't polarizing. Some reviews say the game has these flaws and other reviews don't mention these flaws at all and pretend they don't exist, so we don't get conflicting opinions. Second, if our experience teaches us anything is that reviews blindly praising a AAA game and forgetting to mention the flaws doesn't really mean that the game has really great moments, aside from really awesome visuals.

Also there are several other examples of complete shit games getting top grades, so I dunno. I see a lot of p. great AAA games on the metacritic in the 80-87ish range dating back to 2012 or so, that I had fun with.

You assume that all AAA games are the same but they are not. Take Bloodlines, for examples. Very enjoyable, 80 on metacritics, but it wasn't a high profile release and the marketing budget was very modest. In comparison Half Life 2 was the high profile release of the year, released at the exact same time, and the media went all out embracing it - 96/100 overall, 31(!) 100/100 reviews, nearly 40 95-99/100 reviews. That's a proper and expected way to rate a high profile release, unless the game in question is so painfully bad that the media can't pretend that it's a flawless masterpiece. A recent example of the latter is Fallout 4 - 84/100.

My point was just that, I'd want to make up my own mind about if the criticisms of the reviews have some merit to their claims or not, which I'm not yet sure they do, but they might.

1. I meant polarizing reviews just in the review scores. Obviously, something had to be experienced pretty differently even if it's written or not written in the review, since I see alot of 9's and 9.5's and some 6 and 7's, pretty big difference there, if it's not gonna be about better graphics.

2. So what you're saying is, because S. Enix hype marketed their game, it should automatically have garnered higher scores than 8.5? And because it didn't get a solid 9 or 9.5 avg, it's then to be considered a shit game?

Half-life 2 might have gotten those scores, because it actually was a better game than Bloodlines. Keep in mind, that the opinions of the codex and other "hardcore" sites, are the clear minority when talking all game genres. Fallout 4 got shit reviews, despite of extreme fanboys and super hype, because it was TOO much of the same, and the hype had reached unpresedented levels I imagine.

The Deus Ex franchise is nowhere near the same level of hype and fanboyism that fallout popamole 3 + 4 has. Thus I reckon, that Deus Ex MD reviews are probably closer to an actual 8.5 (which is definitely not a bad score) than fallout 4's and others in that range, because people don't have rose tinted glasses when it comes to Deux Ex, and not as biased, yet still manage to give it a fairly high score.

 

[Vault Dweller]

My point was just that, I'd want to make up my own mind about if the criticisms of the reviews have some merit to their claims or not, which I'm not yet sure they do, but they might.

I'm not asking you to take my or someone else's word for it. I'm merely commenting on the reviews.

1. I meant polarizing reviews just in the review scores. Obviously, something had to be experienced pretty differently even if it's written or not written in the review, since I see alot of 9's and 9.5's and some 6 and 7's, pretty big difference there, if it's not gonna be about better graphics.

The score is meaningless without the context in which it's given. The "OMG! It's awesome" reviews tell us noting of value, so it may or may not be awesome. The "it's kinda meh" reviews say the same thing: too easy, which goes against the overall design; too small, smaller than HR; too many poorly designed 'fetch me' quests. This criticism is very specific, not the kind that could be filed under subjective. Too hard might be subjective, too easy never is. Same goes for too short/small.

2. So what you're saying is, because S. Enix hype marketed their game, it should automatically have garnered higher scores than 8.5? And because it didn't get a solid 9 or 9.5 avg, it's then to be considered a shit game?

That's how it usually works, no? A high profile new release with great graphics gets 10/10 scores and is immune to criticism until the next game in the series rolls out.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Fallout 3 was kinda 'good for what it is'

Who are you, and what have you done with the real VD.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081202033348/http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

"It’s a good and entertaining action RPG provided you can ignore the fact that it was supposed to be a Fallout game and mentally block that aspect of it, and if you can do the same about the silly “amusement park” setting. ... Compared to the first two Fallout games, Fallout 3 is a pale imitation that may anger many fans of the original games. However, comparing Fallout 3 to similar games like Morrowind, Oblivion, Gothic, Two Worlds, Assassins Creed, etc presents a much more favourable reaction. I think that it’s the best game Bethesda have produced since the Daggerfall days ..."

Fallout 3 better than Morrowind? Fucking hell. Fallout 3 was a children's version of Fallout. Morrowind at least stayed true to the lore and had a unique atmosphere, for all its other faults.

 

[Bubbles]

ban Vault Dweller