New Deus Ex Not "Dumbed Down" for Consoles

[individual11]

I've been looking forward to this since i was kinda let down by Invisible War.
Just a question, but I was under the impression that Nanotech Augmentations were supposed to be markedly superior to Mechanical Augmentations, and not just in the 'ease of concealment' way.
Human Revolution is a prequel to The Conspiracy. Ten years worth of tech development in the game industry aside, does it follow a logical continuity? "Dude, this antique mech had regenerating health, but all the new nanoaugs have to actively select the upgrade, and sacrifice bio-electric energy for the healing effect."
Did Gunther Hermann or Anna Navarre, the last of the Top-of-the-line Mil-spec Mechs have regenerating health?

In a franchise, continuity is important.
Unless this is a retcon, and the first two are going to be re-released.

As an aside, if Eidos are smart, they'll leave the PC version mod-friendly, because there will be a lot of people wanting to change things.

 

[incal11]

Deus Ex had a regenerative health augment anyway, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

You just won at the internet.

If you read my answer to this you would see it does not win so much.

I fail to see how keeping that sort of mechanic would not work on a console though. It hasn't been dumbed down FOR CONSOLES it has just been dumbed down. The developer's could spend time programming the bio-energy recharge stations and balancing their frequency through the game and finding the right balance of energy points to health regen and other augmentations. Or they could just stick regenerating health in and make their job a tonne easier.

I did not say it was being dumbed down because of the consoles, but because the publisher wants it to reach a larger audience, most of it being console gamers, most of those console gamers being exclusive FPS players (with no experience of what a truly good shooter is like and wouldn't be able to enjoy them anyway because they are so spoiled by shiny graphics).
I'm not being elitist, it's a fact, but I don't blame the console gamers themselves, only the publishers who started this trend.

The developer's could spend time programming the bio-energy recharge stations and balancing their frequency through the game and finding the right balance of energy points to health regen and other augmentations. Or they could just stick regenerating health in and make their job a tonne easier.

and it's a shame, because it would mean they are too lazy to really try and make a great game.
As I said, it's not because of the consoles, but because of how the devs see the console players.

 

[tzimize]

This is going to be so much worse than the original it isnt even funny. Hopefully it will at least beat the awful sequel.

 

[Sacman]

I'll believe it when I see it.

this... as much as I love Deus Ex I know how easy it is to screw it up...

 

[Sacman]

snip

yeah and the worst thing about the trailers is how it highlights scripted event and boss fights, like that planted bomb exploding and, worse, the spider tank thing, that was in another trailer...

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

There is NO way to make a game equally good for the console as it is for the PC. The PC is simply a superior gaming platform for immersive single player experiences. With a PC You are sitting upright, the screen is in your face, and you are probably wearing headphones. That alone adds tension and brings you more into the game. The console is better for actiony platformy games because those games work better both with gamepads and couches.

Unless the interface is totally changed between the PC and the console then to put it bluntly the PC interface will SUCK. If an interface is good for at 10 feet for a TV screen and thumbstick it will be incredibly clunky at 18 inches on a PC screen with a pixel sensitive mouse pointer.

Borderlands, Fallout, Mass Effect, etc etc etc. Fallout was basically unplayable on the PC without mods to totally overhaul the interface. My text editor can easily handle 100 lines on the screen, why do I need to hit "next" every 3 lines of dialog? Borderlands neglected the trivial ability to compare two guns without equipping one and had the incredibly awkward "level up to equip more than 2 guns" mechanic. Mass Effect suffered the console "press one button to do everything" disease. An enemy is in my face, I want to sprint away, instead I take cover at his crotch because that is what the computer decided was the best course of action. I have 120 keys! Let me use separate buttons for sprint, jump, and take cover!

And as for gameplay, regenerating health systems SUCK. Because that means they won't have a real inventory system, either tetris based or weight based (or both like the godly System Shock 2). Lack of an inventory system totally ruined Bioshock for me.

If there is no real inventory system chances are there won't be a real leveling system. Because god knows if a player can't handle managing inventory he can't handle making meaningful leveling decisions, again Bioshock failed there, Mass Effect 2 also.

Cover shooting is just BORING. He pops up, you pop up, he pops up, you pop up, eventually one dies, but oh wait your health regens so you can only die if there are massively overwhelming odds... With cover shooting and regenning health every fight is the same. I hate how developers trying to close Gears of Bore completely sucked the fun out of every shooting game since.

Sadly I think this century's games have peaked with STALKER and with the continued consoleification of the game market I don't think the holy trinity of Deus Ex, System Shock 2, and STALKER will get any company any time soon.

 

[Sacman]

There is NO way to make a game equally good for the console as it is for the PC. The PC is simply a superior gaming platform for immersive single player experiences. With a PC You are sitting upright, the screen is in your face, and you are probably wearing headphones. That alone adds tension and brings you more into the game. The console is better for actiony platformy games because those games work better both with gamepads and couches.

Unless the interface is totally changed between the PC and the console then to put it bluntly the PC interface will SUCK. If an interface is good for at 10 feet for a TV screen and thumbstick it will be incredibly clunky at 18 inches on a PC screen with a pixel sensitive mouse pointer.

Borderlands, Fallout, Mass Effect, etc etc etc. Fallout was basically unplayable on the PC without mods to totally overhaul the interface. My text editor can easily handle 100 lines on the screen, why do I need to hit "next" every 3 lines of dialog? Borderlands neglected the trivial ability to compare two guns without equipping one and had the incredibly awkward "level up to equip more than 2 guns" mechanic. Mass Effect suffered the console "press one button to do everything" disease. An enemy is in my face, I want to sprint away, instead I take cover at his crotch because that is what the computer decided was the best course of action. I have 120 keys! Let me use separate buttons for sprint, jump, and take cover!

And as for gameplay, regenerating health systems SUCK. Because that means they won't have a real inventory system, either tetris based or weight based (or both like the godly System Shock 2). Lack of an inventory system totally ruined Bioshock for me.

If there is no real inventory system chances are there won't be a real leveling system. Because god knows if a player can't handle managing inventory he can't handle making meaningful leveling decisions, again Bioshock failed there, Mass Effect 2 also.

Cover shooting is just BORING. He pops up, you pop up, he pops up, you pop up, eventually one dies, but oh wait your health regens so you can only die if there are massively overwhelming odds... With cover shooting and regenning health every fight is the same. I hate how developers trying to close Gears of Bore completely sucked the fun out of every shooting game since.

Sadly I think this century's games have peaked with STALKER and with the continued consoleification of the game market I don't think the holy trinity of Deus Ex, System Shock 2, and STALKER will get any company any time soon.

holy crap you just read my mind... ZOMG... you put down everything I was too lazy to type...

 

[DayDark]

There is NO way to make a game equally good for the console as it is for the PC. The PC is simply a superior gaming platform for immersive single player experiences. With a PC You are sitting upright, the screen is in your face, and you are probably wearing headphones. That alone adds tension and brings you more into the game. The console is better for actiony platformy games because those games work better both with gamepads and couches

.

Right of the bat you list three things which is subjective to the individual gamers room setup, and independent of the platform itself, then make a subjective assumption about what genres are suitable for another platform which isn't your main platform of choice.

Unless the interface is totally changed between the PC and the console then to put it bluntly the PC interface will SUCK. If an interface is good for at 10 feet for a TV screen and thumbstick it will be incredibly clunky at 18 inches on a PC screen with a pixel sensitive mouse pointer.

Borderlands, Fallout, Mass Effect, etc etc etc. Fallout was basically unplayable on the PC without mods to totally overhaul the interface. My text editor can easily handle 100 lines on the screen, why do I need to hit "next" every 3 lines of dialog? Borderlands neglected the trivial ability to compare two guns without equipping one and had the incredibly awkward "level up to equip more than 2 guns" mechanic. Mass Effect suffered the console "press one button to do everything" disease. An enemy is in my face, I want to sprint away, instead I take cover at his crotch because that is what the computer decided was the best course of action. I have 120 keys! Let me use separate buttons for sprint, jump, and take cover!

All of this is a great lesson in how interfaces should be adjusted to the platform like it was done with dragon age, even with your obvious bias.

And as for gameplay, regenerating health systems SUCK. Because that means they won't have a real inventory system, either tetris based or weight based (or both like the godly System Shock 2). Lack of an inventory system totally ruined Bioshock for me.

Correlation/Causation fallacy.

If there is no real inventory system chances are there won't be a real leveling system. Because god knows if a player can't handle managing inventory he can't handle making meaningful leveling decisions, again Bioshock failed there, Mass Effect 2 also.

Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Cover shooting is just BORING. He pops up, you pop up, he pops up, you pop up, eventually one dies, but oh wait your health regens so you can only die if there are massively overwhelming odds... With cover shooting and regenning health every fight is the same. I hate how developers trying to close Gears of Bore completely sucked the fun out of every shooting game since.

Subjective Opinion, followed by Straw Man Fallacy.

 

[Woodsey]

You're right, I'm sure the cover system makes you totally invisible *rolls eyes several times*.

...........

:|

that wasn't my point..I'm just saying it's going to be as stealthy as any other GoW clone.

Oh yes, of course. It has a cover system. It must be a Gears clone.

They've done playthrough demonstrations to journalists (previews are ALL OVER THE PLACE) showing 3 ways you can tackle a mission by only focusing on stealth, action or social (obviously you can mix and match however you like).

I think it's safe to say that since the game is focusing on using stealth, it may actually attempt it properly at least. Gears uses cover for shooting. DXHR uses it for action andstealth.

Why people are just pulling random comparisons out of their explicit orifices is beyond me (like that guy who brought up Borderlands from nowhere).

 

[incal11]

And as for gameplay, regenerating health systems SUCK. Because that means they won't have a real inventory system, either tetris based or weight based (or both like the godly System Shock 2). Lack of an inventory system totally ruined Bioshock for me.

Correlation/Causation fallacy.

If there is no real inventory system chances are there won't be a real leveling system. Because god knows if a player can't handle managing inventory he can't handle making meaningful leveling decisions, again Bioshock failed there, Mass Effect 2 also.

Slippery Slope Fallacy.

It's a correlation and a supposition, but based on passed experience. You have to admit that if DE3 has a comprehensive inventory and levelling system on top of the regenerating health even you will be surprised. One can hope, but I wouldn't bet on it

Cover shooting is just BORING. He pops up, you pop up, he pops up, you pop up, eventually one dies, but oh wait your health regens so you can only die if there are massively overwhelming odds... With cover shooting and regenning health every fight is the same. I hate how developers trying to close Gears of Bore completely sucked the fun out of every shooting game since.

Subjective Opinion, followed by Straw Man Fallacy.

It's an exageration but the point is right, nowadays it seems all shooters are trying to be halo/gow. It isn't exactly true but the trend is big enough for such feelings of frustration to be justified.

To go right down to it I'll just quote myself.

(in a bad game) constantly backtracking for health packs is just as crushingly boring as staying crouched behind a wall. Even then you'd at least be using your memory instead of just waiting ; while the tension in the gunfights would be the same in the end, with or without regeneration.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

no meaningful contribution

Do you actually have anything to add to the conversation?

 

[mad825]

Oh yes, of course. It has a cover system. It must be a Gears clone.

They've done playthrough demonstrations to journalists (previews are ALL OVER THE PLACE) showing 3 ways you can tackle a mission by only focusing on stealth, action or social (obviously you can mix and match however you like).

"chest high walls" everywhere ✔
auto-regen health ✔
cover based gunfights ✔
"blood" on screen? Maybe

seems like a good description of a basic GoW clone, yes it may feature other options but will people ever try them out? I doubt it, it might be another ME2 scenario where the users will only choose the most generic route as neither (stealth and social)seems to be thee most exciting. to this "generation" and the lead developer/designer doesn't have the best résumé for a game like this.

I think it's safe to say that since the game is focusing on using stealth, it may actually attempt it properly at least. Gears uses cover for shooting. DXHR uses it for action andstealth.

I wouldn't make judgements like that this early, only one flimsy 20 min demo that was most probably the "greatest" example, we might find out that there will be unbalanced situations at different parts of the game.

Why people are just pulling random comparisons out of their explicit orifices is beyond me (like that guy who brought up Borderlands from nowhere).

really, it's just you.
having high hopes for a game is not logical.

 

[Woodsey]

Oh yes, of course. It has a cover system. It must be a Gears clone.

They've done playthrough demonstrations to journalists (previews are ALL OVER THE PLACE) showing 3 ways you can tackle a mission by only focusing on stealth, action or social (obviously you can mix and match however you like).

"chest high walls" everywhere ✔
auto-regen health ✔
cover based gunfights ✔
"blood" on screen? Maybe

seems like a good description of a basic GoW clone, yes it may feature other options but will people ever try them out? I doubt it, it might be another ME2 scenario where the users will only choose the most generic route as neither (stealth and social)seems to be thee most exciting. to this "generation" and the lead developer/designer doesn't have the best résumé for a game like this.

I think it's safe to say that since the game is focusing on using stealth, it may actually attempt it properly at least. Gears uses cover for shooting. DXHR uses it for action andstealth.

I wouldn't make judgements like that this early, only one flimsy 20 min demo that was most probably the "greatest" example, we might find out that there will be unbalanced situations at different parts of the game.

Why people are just pulling random comparisons out of their explicit orifices is beyond me (like that guy who brought up Borderlands from nowhere).

really, it's just you.
having high hopes for a game is not logical.

- Shooting
- Driving
- Armour system

So tell me, am I describing Half-Life 2 or GTA IV? Or a million other games? You've just picked features which are in almost every game with guns in it.

You criticise me for making judgements too early, but at least my opinions are based on interviews, previews and gameplay videos that I've seen and looked at. You're just pulling preconceptions out of your arse and running with it.

Your last quote of me and your last comment don't match up. People are talking about bad experiences with different games from completely different companies, whereas it's perfectly normal to have high hopes for a game; or to at least look at the information available and not slag said game off at every turn.

 

[DayDark]

It's a correlation and a supposition, but based on passed experience. You have to admit that if DE3 has a comprehensive inventory and levelling system on top of the regenerating health even you will be surprised. One can hope, but I wouldn't bet on it

I don't see why I would be surprised, I don't see how they are even connected, to me it's like saying that if you build a sandbox in a public park, the sun will turn purple...I mean how the hell does regen health effect inventory system in any way? The only thing I would see missing is health packs, but unless the inventory consisted of only health packs, I can't see the causation. And how a leveling system can be a function of regen/non-regen health I just have to WTF at, how in the world are those linked?

It's an exageration but the point is right, nowadays it seems all shooters are trying to be halo/gow. It isn't exactly true but the trend is big enough for such feelings of frustration to be justified.

I disagree, his exaggeration distorts his point to where it's untrue. If I said the first DE was simply an FPS that would not just be a simple exaggeration, and pointing out the exaggeration would not somehow make it more valid. Halo is a non-coverbased FPS while GoW is a cover-based Third Person Shooter, that's pretty much any game in the shooter genre, but I don't see the problem with that, because that is the definition of a shooter, it is not the essence of the games. Either way, the relationship between shooters and halo/GoW is irrelevant, because the only reason this was brought up by him is because DE3 is gonna have cover, but cover is means to an end, this doesn't mean they will be the same experience, I've played my share of cover shooters and to say they feel like GoW would not be less than true, it would be completely wrong. That is why it's a straw man, from the simple fact that DE3 is gonna have a cover system, he jumps of the rails to rant about a popular cover based shooter, disregarding the other obvious non-similarities. It's like ranting about how football sucks so, golf shouldn't utilize balls.

To go right down to it I'll just quote myself.

(in a bad game) constantly backtracking for health packs is just as crushingly boring as staying crouched behind a wall. Even then you'd at least be using your memory instead of just waiting ; while the tension in the gunfights would be the same in the end, with or without regeneration.

I would say staying crouched behind a wall is less boring than backtracking considering it is less time consuming. While in cover you can also asses your situation, while if backtracking you wont know how the problem has changed until you get back. I mean that is the whole frustration about backtracking to get something, it's that you have to wait until you solve the problem. I don't understand the argument that you'd at least be using memory, I mean is the point simply to make you use memory?

 

[mad825]

- Shooting
- Driving
- Armour system

So tell me, am I describing Half-Life 2 or GTA IV? Or a million other games? You've just picked features which are in almost every game with guns in it.

thanks for making it detailed? those are just a basic description of a fps/tps, that's a genre not a game.

You criticise me for making judgements too early, but at least my opinions are based on interviews, previews and gameplay videos that I've seen and looked at. You're just pulling preconceptions out of your arse and running with it.

^.^
Oh yes! they all seem so suspiciously familiar!
I have seen all the latest new/previews/"reviews"/gameplay vid and so far most of them are negative and show oblivious signs of conformity while trying to snidely sneaking in the thumbs-up like any other branded name for a game (I suppose you could say that the information is generic).
you may try to generate an opinion by the information for what that information is related to but I'm trying to get a general idea of the game out of the information that is being shown and combining that with possible problems that could easily occur within the game

the gameplay video quite clearly shows that all (most at least) of the gunfights are going to cover based shoot-outs, the Thrid person view while in cover removes a feature that Deus Ex had embraced for stealth as you relied on senses (and leaning) that only could have been experienced in 1st person
Auto regen Removes the "thrill" one might experience if one was on low heath didn't want to get caught and the possibility of one wanting to save heathkit/consumables
the more "cover" means less skill/effort that needs to be put in.

 

[Arec Balrin]

The point is to make you use any mental resource that isn't often used in a first-person game with guns. Doom and Quake at least did cater not just for the twitch-player but the compulsive explorer, which precious few games do now: they usually pick one or the other.

It doesn't help Human Revolution's chances that the development team had some issues understanding the concept of making stuff that some players would see and others wouldn't. This explicitly confirms they are not native PC gamers, did not play the original Deus Ex in its day nor any of the other games that would have prepared them for this: Baldur's Gate, Knights of the Old Republic, System Shock, Thief, Sacrifice, Morrowind or even World of Warcraft. Human Revolution genuinely does feel more like a legacy of Gears of Halo than it does World of Thieving Baldur's Old Republic Shock.

 

[incal11]

unless the inventory consisted of only health packs, I can't see the causation. And how a leveling system can be a function of regen/non-regen health I just have to WTF at, how in the world are those linked?

They are linked because developpers and publishers think they are linked, even if in truth they are not. They think that the console FPS players they're targetting won't accept health bar nor anything more "complicated" like an old school inventory and levelling system (see SS2). This is proven by the trend all "modern" shooters are following.

the relationship between shooters and halo/GoW is irrelevant, because the only reason this was brought up by him is because DE3 is gonna have cover, but cover is means to an end, this doesn't mean they will be the same experience, I've played my share of cover shooters and to say they feel like GoW would not be less than true, it would be completely wrong. That is why it's a straw man, from the simple fact that DE3 is gonna have a cover system, he jumps of the rails to rant about a popular cover based shooter, disregarding the other obvious non-similarities. It's like ranting about how football sucks so, golf shouldn't utilize balls.

"halo/gow" is an amalgam to convey the meaning
"regeneration + cover based + implied lack of story depth = modern shooter clone != deus ex".
It may be paranoia and fan wailing, there's still a grain of truth in this.
This is only my own experience, but almost all shooters with cover and/or regeneration felt the same to me ; the settings are different, but the overall gameplay experience is shallow. Though maybe I just played too many shooters and have become jaded. What is feared is that DE3 will be too much like a basic shooter even with the advertised "multiple choices", and not enough like a FPS/RPG.
It's more like saying how football suck, so lets not make golf even remotely like it.

To go right down to it I'll just quote myself.

(in a bad game) constantly backtracking for health packs is just as crushingly boring as staying crouched behind a wall. Even then you'd at least be using your memory instead of just waiting ; while the tension in the gunfights would be the same in the end, with or without regeneration.

I would say staying crouched behind a wall is less boring than backtracking considering it is less time consuming. While in cover you can also asses your situation, while if backtracking you wont know how the problem has changed until you get back. I mean that is the whole frustration about backtracking to get something, it's that you have to wait until you solve the problem. I don't understand the argument that you'd at least be using memory, I mean is the point simply to make you use memory?

When you're under fire and thinking "I think there is some health over there" you are using your memory, you still have to assess the situation, and may have some added excitement as others mentioned. In a good game there is no lenghty backtracking necessary during a firefight.
Compare with "i'll wait here 5 seconds before shooting again" *get hit*, repeat. Small variations in gameplay does not compensate this.
The practical downside of the health bar is that you have to quick save often, because when you screw up, you screw up. I can see how regeneration is a progress on consoles, it is not so on the PC, but hopefully a mod can fix that.