There are a couple of things I don't understand about this article. Firstly, both Russ Pitts' description of Deus Ex - "overly complex, deeply flawed" - and Warren Spector's comments about the game cast it in a rather negative light. I hope this doesn't come across as a fanboy's knee-jerk reaction - much as I love the game, I can view it objectively - but this is genuinely not an attitude to the game that I've come across before, and I wouldn't expect to see it seemingly taken for granted by author and subject in this way. I'd have liked this opinion to be justified in the article, albeit briefly, since overall the game has garnered an overwhelmingly favourable reaction.
The comment on the complexity is certainly a valid criticism, but I don't know anyone who would consider "flawed" a key word in describing the game - sure, it has flaws, but they're not a mjaor part of the experience of playing the game. Some flaws are just due to the technological limitations of the time, and I don't think there's anything wrong with the game that can't be overlooked in light of its many excellent aspects. Spector himself criticises the apparently excessive amount of choice the game provides the player with - the very thing that people love most about the game. I know that some people will disagree, but so many people do love the game; why does Spector appear to have a slightly embarrassed, well-at-least-we-tried attitude towards Deus Ex? Did he not notice all those awards?
Secondly, I started reading the article under the impression that the way consequences and tasks are handled in Epic Mickey would be new and interesting, but I didn't see any evidence of that. Indeed, the ice-cream-or-flowers quest is a classic example of a standard video game task, with the added bonus of being a complete no-brainer; no one is going to give the guy the wrong gift - and pass up on the reward - unless they're so bored with the game that they can't be bothered to do a longer fetch quest, in which case the game has bigger problems. If you choose the flowers you are rewarded with an in-game item, the satisfaction of making the "better" choice and the gameplay experience of actually going to get the flower, which you would hope would be fun. Saying that the player will have to decide whether to lose out on the reward or give up a load of their time looking for the flower doesn't constitute an satisfying choice; if having to invest time and effort in the game is a negative, the game has failed. Even if they didn't know in advance that there would be a reward for giving him the flowers, I suspect most players would instinctively choose that option in the hope/expectation that there would be some positive consequence, unless they didn't particularly care about accumulating rewards and were going for the comedy option.
That said, the paint-versus-thinner tactics and the way choices have a cumulative effect on the world and characters around you are both good ideas, and I'm interested in the result. I just don't think this article delivered what it promised.
