Chade on 12/10/2007 at 21:30
One thing I like about IW's endings, and I'm not sure if everyone is going to agree with this ... but one thing I like is that the story throughout the game does a great job at providing you with a heap of material which relates to your final decision.
Of course, DX did a good job of this too, but most of the story focussed on how evil bob page was, and then right at the end the "good guys" split up and you had to choose between them. Whereas in IW, the whole story and game world focussed around the decisions you would have to make at the end of the game (apart from the unfortunate merging of the order and the WTO: which I thought got rid of some interesting choices).
Also, while the level design at the end sucked (particularly if you hadn't concentrated on combat!), having the ending take place on liberty island, and sticking all the main characters in the level, and saying: "do what you want with these people" ... that was very cool.
Papy on 12/10/2007 at 22:57
With Deus Ex, I felt I was just a guy without much power who was caught in the middle of a conspiracy. In a way, I was a loser who couldn't control anything. At the end of the game, after all those things I had to endure, I came to a position where I was able to tip the balance. I couldn't do what I wanted, but at least I went from a pawn to the guy who made a difference.
With Invisible War, I felt I was a the center of the world. I was the hero to whom people ask favors. So when at the end of the game I couldn't choose what I wanted, me, the hero, it was a let down. I went from the hero to just a guy who could only tip the balance.
ZymeAddict on 13/10/2007 at 06:05
Quote Posted by Muzman
From that description they sound pretty darn similar actually, with the addition of a fairly obvious 'bad guys win' ending that's pretty lame in IW, only the IW ones make a lot more sense by games end and they make better use of the themes of political economy and technological progress. And I think you're mis-characterising the Helios ending in IW completely. That's the ultimate flow on from Morpheus' little speal in DX; the creation of an earthy god to be aware of all individual affairs and to enable individuals to understand larger issues and how they affect other individuals more effectively, while god balances the lot. That's the flaw in JC just being just a dominating supercomputer at the end of the first, he's got no real awareness of the populace, and, whatever anyone thinks of the 'combo ending' being used as the bsis for IW, it makes sense that he would have figured this out and realised there needed to be another step. JC and co explain this fairly clearly (althought they could do better), it's just a matter (as with everything in the game) of whether you believe their version or that of their enemies. The writer is pulling some little trick about faith in this I'm sure, as trust and mistrust is such a heavy factor in IWs story. It's there but it doesn't come across all that well.
Fine, maybe I was a tad optimistic in that respect, but that particular aspect still doesn't change my main point: IWs endings are worse because they introduce more drastic changes with more negative repercussions, and they accomplish them in a more permanent manner. I don't see at all how the the two game's endings are "pretty darn similar" when it comes to these characteristics.
I also don't agree that IW did a better job framing it's endings in relation to the major themes of the game. Maybe IW was slightly more obvious, but I think DX was just as good, if not better, at doing this.
Quote Posted by Papy
With Deus Ex, I felt I was just a guy without much power who was caught in the middle of a conspiracy. In a way, I was a loser who couldn't control anything. At the end of the game, after all those things I had to endure, I came to a position where I was able to tip the balance. I couldn't do what I wanted, but at least I went from a pawn to the guy who made a difference.
With Invisible War, I felt I was a the center of the world. I was the hero to whom people ask favors. So when at the end of the game I couldn't choose what I wanted, me, the hero, it was a let down. I went from the hero to just a guy who could only tip the balance.
Good point. I'd never thought about it that way, but that makes a lot of sense.
Muzman on 13/10/2007 at 10:12
Quote Posted by ZymeAddict
IWs endings are worse because they introduce more drastic changes with more negative repercussions, and they accomplish them in a more permanent manner. I don't see at all how the the two game's endings are "pretty darn similar" when it comes to these characteristics.
IWs endings only seem more drastic and permananent because they are better explained, and they are explained in a "this is how it goes from now on" sort of voice, which is perhaps a flaw. But that's pretty typical for this kind of thing (see Choose Your Own Adventure books). DXs ending all basically conclude with a "Ooh, what now?" which is just as bad in some ways. But they each have a "give it all to the illuminati" ending, a "fuck it all" ending and a "possible trancendence" ending.
Quote:
I also don't agree that IW did a better job framing it's endings in relation to the major themes of the game. Maybe IW was slightly more obvious, but I think DX was just as good, if not better, at doing this.
Eh, the Tong ending is idiotic, comes competely out of nowhere and is totally out of character. Are we to assume he's gone a bit funny after all the anti-viral meds and painkillers?
Chade on 13/10/2007 at 10:49
Papy, I'd love to hear more about what exactly made you feel that way about the two games endings. I certainly didn't feel that, and I can't think of why you would, of the top of my head. While I didn't feel that either game suffered in that way, if I had single one out, it would be DX.
By the time you had got to Area 51 in DX, you had pretty much already single handedly turned the fate of the world around, nuked Bob page's hideout, and you were closing in for the kill. And throughout the story, not much happened in the world that JC didn't get a chance to "finish off", one way or another.
In IW, you were very much just one participant in a battle of many players. A lot happened while you were out on your various missions. Even in the final battle, where you were the decisive agent, you were really only the "straw that broke the camels back", rather then the hero who triumphed single-handedly over his foes.
heywood on 13/10/2007 at 15:36
Quote:
By the time you had got to Area 51 in DX, you had pretty much already single handedly turned the fate of the world around, nuked Bob page's hideout, and you were closing in for the kill.
You haven't turned anything around until the very end. As is obvious when you get there, nuking A51 hasn't done anything at all aside from killing a bunch of people on the surface. Only in the final cutscene of the game does Bob Page fall.
One of the big differences in DX and IW plot presentation is that DX keeps the conspiracies alive until the end of the game. The factions don't make their true agendas clear until you are well into A51 (although you should already have guessed Everett's plan by then). DX also reveals a lot of back story in A51. All the plot revelations, combined with the feeling of closing in for the kill, gives A51 a climactic feel. The last level of IW doesn't feel nearly as climactic.
By the time you get to Liberty Island in IW, you know everything about your own origin and exactly what each faction wants to do. There's hardly any plot left at that point, so aside from a UNATCO Easter egg or two, the level amounts to little more than making a menu selection to choose your ending. Antarctica steals a lot of its thunder with the big JC reveal, the Grays, and the Billie battle. And then you're forced to choose a faction in Cairo, so you arrive in Liberty Island already allied. I almost think the ending might have been better if you were stuck the with faction you chose in Cairo. Then they could have made 3 variations of the final level, each being more tightly focused.
Quote:
In IW, you were very much just one participant in a battle of many players. A lot happened while you were out on your various missions. Even in the final battle, where you were the decisive agent, you were really only the "straw that broke the camels back", rather then the hero who triumphed single-handedly over his foes.
In IW, 2 of the 3 factions need your Biomod architecture to complete their agenda. So rather than being the "straw that broke the camel's back", you're more like the "5th element". In IW, you were engineered by ApostleCorp to change the world. In DX, you were engineered by Page to be his goon.
But, I can see where you're coming from. IW doesn't have a clear antagonist like Page for the groups in the game to ally themselves against. You definitely feel like Alex is caught in the middle, even at the end. Whereas in DX, you feel like JC is at the tip of the spear by the end.
DaveW on 13/10/2007 at 16:32
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Actually, I was making the point that, "If I can quote someone saying something untrue, I prove that
some quotes are untrue!"
Which is true.
Oh, I never suggested it was true because I quoted it. It's true because, well, it's pretty accurate.
ZymeAddict on 13/10/2007 at 18:44
Quote Posted by Muzman
IWs endings only seem more drastic and permananent because they are better explained, and they are explained in a "this is how it goes from now on" sort of voice, which is perhaps a flaw. But that's pretty typical for this kind of thing (see Choose Your Own Adventure books). DXs ending all basically conclude with a "Ooh, what now?" which is just as bad in some ways. But they each have a "give it all to the illuminati" ending, a "fuck it all" ending and a "possible trancendence" ending.
Eh, the Tong ending is idiotic, comes competely out of nowhere and is totally out of character. Are we to assume he's gone a bit funny after all the anti-viral meds and painkillers?
That sort of presentation might make it more obvious (and I think you are exaggerating the level of the open-endedness in the DX endings a bit) but that certainly doesn't account for all of what I said.
It's just a matter of common sense. Which is more permanent and drastic? An essential return to the status quo (DX Illuminati ending with limited and suggestive power), or an outright world dictatorship? (IW ending) The plunging of the world into temporary anarchy which leads to the rise of more localized government (DX Tong ending), or the complete nuking of the entire world, with only an extremely bio-modified group of trans-humans surviving? The creation of an AI world dictator who could possibly be overthrown sometime in the future (DX Helios), or the permanent merging of the entire human race (IW Denton)?
Come on man, this has been my point the whole time and you've danced around it long enough. Please tell me how these results are equal in severity and permanence.
And how does Tong's ending come anymore "out of nowhere" than the others? Yeah, maybe the Illuminati ending was a bit easier to predict, but did you really think going in "You know, I bet Helios wants to merge with me and become the benevolent dictator of the world".
I don't see how it is "completely out of character" either. He's allied with the Triads, remember? That seems like a pretty good example of "localized government" to me.
Chade on 13/10/2007 at 21:22
Quote Posted by heywood
There's hardly any plot left at that point, so aside from a UNATCO Easter egg or two, the level amounts to little more than making a menu selection to choose your ending ... I almost think the ending might have been better if you were stuck the with faction you chose in Cairo. Then they could have made 3 variations of the final level, each being more tightly focused.
Hehe, I'd never thought about it that way before, but I can see your point. I wish all my menu driven office software was that fun! (Might get a bit laborious, though ...)
However, I definitely disagree about removing the choice of faction in the final level. That would have made the level far less memorable for me, personally. I always treated the "final decision" very seriously, and often changed sides once I reached the level. In fact, in some of my earliest games, I even swapped sides multiple times, as I remembered different events in the game which influenced my decision.
I guess this arguments shows how complicated games like DX are to design ... there are so many ups and downs, and often they come packaged together with the same gameplay elements ...
Papy on 13/10/2007 at 23:16
Quote Posted by Chade
Papy, I'd love to hear more about what exactly made you feel that way about the two games endings.
With Deus Ex, I am not at the center of the universe, I'm not even an important person. Manderley is my boss, Navarre is not impress by who I am and she don't hesitate to criticize me. Paul don't really trust me. The men in black ignore me... And this goes on for most of the game. It's only toward the end that things begin to change. You said that "not much happened in the world that JC didn't get a chance to finish off, one way or another". I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I certainly never felt I was in control of anything with Deus Ex. I had to obey, I had to help other people because I needed service from them, I had to save my ass, but I was never in control.
On the other hand, with Invisible War, I am no one's employee. Everywhere I go, there are people who need me, who want me to do them favors, but it's always me who choose if I help them or not. They don't really have much power over me. I am the savior. If I betray them, although they may express their displeasure, they are still at my feet begging me to help them again. I am not someone who choose his side, I am a king who judge and decide. Right from the start, I am the one in control.
Another thing that contributed to the feeling of being a super hero with Invisible War is the fact that the game play was extremely easy. I am never in real danger. I have too much money, too much resources and I am far too powerful. After Cairo, my biomods are at maximum and I can't progress anymore. Anyway, I don't need to as the game is cakewalk. The fact is I don't need anything or anyone.
The result of this general feeling has a big impact on how I feel about the ending. With Deus Ex, I am happy with the fact of being able to tip the balance. With Invisible War, I just feel frustration of just being able to tip the balance.
Quote Posted by Chade
I guess this arguments shows how complicated games like DX are to design ... there are so many ups and downs, and often they come packaged together with the same gameplay elements ...
What is really complicated, to a point where I would say it's impossible, is to please different people, who play for different reasons, with the exact same game. A game can't be both for the casual gamers who want to have fun and the "sophisticated" gamers who wants to be challenged (morally, intellectually and from an action point of view).
