YuSeF on 11/11/2008 at 00:12
Quote Posted by van HellSing
Maybe. But let's play a little "What If" game. No one complains about the third person convos in DX, right?
Let's say the first Deus Ex game had first person conversations. Now, let's say that a new DX game introduced conversations in third person.
My guess is that there'd probably be as much uproar about that as you get now, when they're introducing third person for showing aug effects etc, since OMGZORS TPP CONVERSATIENS NOT TRU TU ORYGYNAL.
You know 3rd person is going to be more than just conversations. "we all wanna see adam do cool stuff". Like watching adam talk to people is fun. So there is a lot more to that. Your pretend scenario was a bad example. They can just use the "ZOMG NOT TRUE TU ORYGYNAL" to make the game whatever they want. You don't call it DX if you're not going to make it like DX. You're choking on edios real hard. You must have a thing for poorly skilled French Canadian game designers.
Yusef was banned for 1 day for this post
Reason: calm down and be more politevan HellSing on 11/11/2008 at 00:20
I'm really tired of the ad hominem. I post food for thought, you accuse me of strange sexual fetishes.
Good night.
Ostriig on 11/11/2008 at 00:32
Quote Posted by YuSeF
There you said it yourself. It won't turn out to be DX. I heard this same wishful thinking when Thief 3 was going to be released. I can't wait to see you start crying and whining about how bad the game is a few years from now when it's out. You'll act like you knew all a long. And from what we've heard so far is not promising. And the developers are making the game now so there won't be so magical 180 turn around. dream on.
You really are a complete idiot, aren't you? I've already stated I don't expect the game to be "Deus Ex", I
do know there's a good chance it won't be. You, however, seem to suggest that it simply "not being DX" will automatically make it a "piece of shit". The trick is to keep your expectations in check to avoid disappointment, but that doesn't mean writing the game off completely when information has just barely begun to trickle down towards the community. There are some out there who claim that Fallout 3 is shit, simply because it didn't live up to their expectations as Fallout 1 & 2 veterans. I, however, despite being, or maybe because I am, a person who hasn't played the previous titles, can safely say that this isn't true and that Fallout 3 is a good game in its own right. Seriously, do I actually have to spell this shit out for you, or could you put some effort into reading the posts you're replying to?
Quote Posted by van HellSing
Maybe. But let's play a little "What If" game. No one complains about the third person convos in DX, right?
Let's say the first Deus Ex game had first person conversations. Now, let's say that a new DX game introduced conversations in third person.
My guess is that there'd probably be as much uproar about that as you get now, when they're introducing third person for showing aug effects etc, since OMGZORS TPP CONVERSATIENS NOT TRU TU ORYGYNAL.
I don't think that's the case here. The conversations created a sort of cinematic interlude to the action of the game, and the out-of-character camera worked towards that. If we're talking about the camera switching during action, however, that changes the whole pace and perception of the game experience and has the potential of breaking immersion. Maybe that's just my impression, though.
rachel on 11/11/2008 at 08:14
Quote Posted by Chade
What? Those two statements are no where near contradicting one another.
In the first he says that the game will switch to third person in some situations, in the second he gives an example of such a situation ... adding that you can avoid this situation if you wish.
I don't see the cause for confusion.
In the first quote they say it's automatic and you can't toggle it off.
In the second quote they say you have a choice and you can toggle it on and off at you heart's content.
Maybe the first quote is incomplete and the second just complements it with that extra tidbit of info. If they're going to implement immersion-breaking stuff like that, that is, other than convo cutscenes, then I want them to be clear about it so we know what to expect.
Look I don't have anything against DX3 per se, hell I'll very probably end up buying it anyway. But if they're gonna communicate with "the community" then they better be as explicit as they can about it when they release this kind of info because right now anyone with a certain preference could be either satisfied or put off by the anouncements depending on their mood, because you can understand them one way or the other.
DDL on 11/11/2008 at 08:35
Quote:
-Auto health regen (although we haven't been told exactly how this will work...)
-Stealth to line-of-sight and sound instead of darkness
-Contextual third person elements
Maybe even just a slight change to one of these is a deal-breaker for you and I can't change that so I'm sorry. However, if you think DX1 is much more than these three elements, then you will be happy:
I guess the problem for me is that..while DX1 IS a hell of a lot more than those three elements, the addition of them seems so...unnecessary. All of the justifications he gives for implementing them are arbitrary.
"You could hide from someone three feet away if you were in the dark"
...well: yes. That's what being in the dark lets you do. I'm not sure that hiding from someone three feet away in broad daylight
because you're behind a lamp post is much better, really. Especially if you're going to be covered in noisy, bulky metal augmentations.
I dunno: I just get the impression they're kinda missing the point (or at least, Rene is?)..
Quote:
And with mechanical augmentations, you will actually be able to see Adam look awesome whereas JC looked pretty normal.
That was...the
point of nanoaugmentation. The whole basis for the project was to circumvent the fact that become a mech didn't make you look awesome, it made you look like a monster. I guess some people might view being mechanised as "awesome", but I'm not sure those people are the classic DX demographic.
Anyway, I guess I'd just like to see those elements made optional, or additional: Conditional Third person awesomeness could be disabled from a menu, and line of sight (which if implemented well is fine) could work WITH shadows. I don't like the idea that "if you're in the dark, but the game can trace a line from you to badguy without hitting something else, they can see you"...though who knows: there may be no real 'dark' planned for the game.
And auto health regen seems like it would take the work of ten minutes of a coder's time to make optional. We shall see.
van HellSing on 11/11/2008 at 08:38
The first quote means there's no general fpp/tpp toggle such as in Deadly Shadows, or Morrowind/Oblivion/Fallout 3 etc.
The second quote means that you can switch to TPP to use the cover system specifically. Try to imagine if Deadly Shadows had no fpp/tpp toggle, but using the wall hugging automatically switched you to third person, and back to first person once you leave the wall hugging mode.
henke on 11/11/2008 at 11:29
I guess the contextual third person that's not wall-hugging is stuff like climbing ladders, hacking, operating machinery. Same system that IGI and Chronicles of Riddick used, that is. I honestly don't know how to feel about this. I loved CoR but I can't help but wonder if it would've been better if it never broke first person. :erg:
rachel on 11/11/2008 at 11:56
Quote Posted by Chade
What? Those two statements are no where near contradicting one another.
In the first he says that the game will switch to third person in some situations, in the second he gives an example of such a situation ... adding that you can avoid this situation if you wish.
I don't see the cause for confusion.
The question is do I have a choice? The first one says no, the second says yes. So which one is it? Or do I have a choice only for cover system, and for the rest (if any), then I just have to accept it and move along?
It's not clear at all and I wish they could be more explicit about what this damn TP perspective is going to be because so far I saw no fundamental gameplay rationale for it, only the excuse that it's "to see you do cool things", and I frankly couldn't possibly care less about that.
DDL on 11/11/2008 at 12:00
raph: It's pretty clear, surely?
Quote:
If you like the good 'ol DX1 style, you don't have to engage the cover system if you don't want to,
so you'll see even less of the contextual 3rd person elements. You can just as easily walk up to that same wall in 1st person and never see the 3rd person cover.
In other words,
A) there are several 3rd person elements
B) cover is ONE of them
C) use of cover is optional
Thus, you can see
less 3rd person, should you choose to ignore cover, but you will still see 3rd person bits elsewhere (though maybe aug choice could further influence this).
rachel on 11/11/2008 at 14:00
Yes, I sort of got that hence the second post.
That's why I'm asking what will those other TP perspective gimmicks be, now we assume there will be more than the cover system? And at least they try to put a gameplay element in that one... I want them to explain what they mean exactly by "doing cool things". (hint: climbing a ladder is not a "cool thing")
My point is, I'm really worried that they'll be breaking immersion just for the sake of "cool". And nothing I read so far has helped shake away that feeling. And if a TPV toggle is made, then it must be for all TPV elements, not just for some actions. Otherwise it doesn't make sense and they're just pretending to be flexible.
