Koki on 26/8/2004 at 06:09
After what (
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3134177) Rob Dyer said I would cry if I were you(you = big fan of Deus Ex).
Well, I'm gonna cry anyway.
1UP: What's Eidos' official business strategy at this point?Dyer: To concentrate on aspirational, edgy, consumer-driven games(...)
1UP: What should we expect from Eidos in the near future?Dyer: We're going to try to get more of a consumer focus into our games. Deus Ex: Invisible War was a good game with solid reviews, but
not enough people bought it. We'll fix that in the future.
Yolmer on 26/8/2004 at 21:29
Good thing they got rid of the moron.
Jonesy on 26/8/2004 at 21:34
Quote:
Dyer: We're going to try to get more of a consumer focus into our games. Deus Ex: Invisible War was a good game with solid reviews, but not enough people bought it. We'll fix that in the future. There definitely will be a Deus Ex 3. People want another Thief, too. We'll make that series more modern, though...the medieval thing's run its course. The coming year will bring some really new, innovative titles, plus comebacks from many brands gamers are already familiar with.
Thief will not be fun in a more modern environment. Sometimes you just got to be able to be able to shoot an arrow into that burrick's head.
Koki on 26/8/2004 at 21:34
Hmmm, AFAIK, he's still with 'em.
Wynne on 27/8/2004 at 07:49
I like some of what Dyer is saying. But this:
Quote:
People want another Thief, too. We'll make that series more modern, though...the medieval thing's run its course. The coming year will bring some really new, innovative titles, plus comebacks from many brands gamers are already familiar with.
Just makes me go ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH. For goodness' sake, all the stealth games right now are MODERN. MODERN. Splinter Cell, NOLF, Metal Gear Solid... that's EXACTLY why Thief should be medieval, or at least remain steam-punkish. He is totally wrong that the medieval thing has run its course. That's Thief's hook in the first place--the fact that it is
not just a clone of other stealth games, it's more hardcore medieval in style. A totally unique setting for the genre people have come to love through Thief & Metal Gear and their host of followers.
It's as rash and foolish as saying, "That whole Lara Croft thing is getting tired. The next Tomb Raider will feature a gay man in hotpants raiding a disco club."
Dyer--and anybody else--would find this out the hard way in reviews. The biggest problem with Thief 3 was the tech, which limited the team from being able to do everything they wanted to, and which kept us from playing the game at its highest difficulty. Modernize it, and it's just Splinter Cell all over again.
If I want Splinter Cell gameplay, I'll play the Splinter Cell games (and I will, actually.) I will not be interested in some cloned Thief Cell.
Quote:
NOTE: Since this interview was conducted, Rob Dyer has taken a position with Crave Entertainment as President & COO.
What were you saying, Koki?
Arqane on 28/8/2004 at 04:59
Quote Posted by Wynne
It's as rash and foolish as saying, "That whole Lara Croft thing is getting tired. The next Tomb Raider will feature a gay man in hotpants raiding a disco club."
Oh the horror... I love it :weird: .
The reason why so many games fail in their sequels is that they don't really care any more, they just want to make money. Not particularly the programmers fault, but definitely the distributors.
That, and graphics really gets in the way. Name all the really awesome games you know with good graphics. Now I'll name a few games where the graphics weren't all that, but they were VERY good games. DX1, SS1/2, Heroes of Might & Magic 2, Drakkhen (old favorite, PC version, not the Nintendo), Master of Magic, MOO2 (Space Empires ended up much better than MOO3 because they tried a bit too much for 3). I know as a programmer, and with friends who work on graphics, that graphics takes up tons of resources. Most developers don't have the resources and time to spend on both for an all-around good game.
Sumgai on 31/8/2004 at 21:30
Quote:
Reasons:
1: Shock games are scarier than DX games.
SS games are more horror/survival games IMHO, so it is meant to be scary, DX is not
Quote:
2: DX's augmentation/biomod system is basically the same as SS1's Neurograft system, although improved.
Given some of the same people are involved in making both games, or they evolved from a similar source, is that any surprise? DX just tries to have a closer to now "basis in science" explanation for the modifications.
Quote:
3: Shock games have more immersive plots.
4: SHODAN is far more intimidating than Majestic 12.
Matter of opinion. You really have only 1 thing to think about in SS, and that is not being killed, but in DX you are more pro-active, you are investigating rather than just trying to survive.
Quote:
5: I found DX 1 to have utterly anemic voice acting. Polito's suicide note in SS2 nearly had me mourning for her by comparison.
I loved JCs voice in DX! Just enough inflection, but not much emotion so it didn't convey an emotional response, after all your emotions count, not your characters.
The logs in SS2 were one off speeches, so IMO it is easier to give that kind of message an emotional depth, but I would probably agree the voice acting was mediocre in DX (gotta love the Aussies though)- pretty bad in IW
Quote:
Overall, even though DX may be more realistic and allow more choice with player actions, the gameplay is primarily a conglomerate of recycled ideas from System Shock. In System Shock, you had multiple ammo types, computer hacking, electrical intrusion, cybernetic augmentations etc. almost a decade before Deus Ex (as a tangent, ID software and assorted Doom clones put gaming through a dark age. System Shock is more advanced than Half-Life in terms of gameplay and this level has, IMO, only ever been exceeded by its sequel).
Not really sure you can directly compare all of those games. Recycled ideas from SS comes back to the creators (can't they recycle their own ideas?). I don't think either game is more "realistic", both try to have psuedo-scientific explanations for their situations.
It really depends what your idea of good gameplay is. Halflife was a straight up shooter, it just had a good storyline/atmosphere to push it along, and if it wasn't for ID we may well be less evolved in terms of graphics (for better or worse I don't know). I doubt that if Doom never existed more people would be enjoying SS or DX games, someone else would say "Hey what about a game where we just shoot things!"- look at those hunting games.
Quote:
In gameplay, I would put Deus Ex only slightly ahead of SS1. I deducted points for a lack of evolution but awarded points for the freedom of choice that you had in DX. What sets the Shock series apart is atmosphere. Shock 2 is the scariest game ever, and Shock 1 still manages to send severe chills up my spine. DX had very little atmosphere for me, and it didn't really feel like true Cyberpunk. Invisible War actually had more atmosphere and felt more Cyberpunk, regardless of the fact that it was less epic than the original.
See, I could never get into SS1, I came to it too late, only after I had played SS2, and the little person icon in the corner of the screen that you could manipulate gave me a great laugh. As did the idea of "Cyber Ninjas".
I just looked up the definition of Cyberpunk, which is so wide just about anything slightly futuristic using computers fits into it, but then again I am not looking for that in a game. SS uses cyberspace themes more.
SS2 is a scary game, I really enjoyed it- I never found DX scary, guess why? It's not a horror story....not meant to be scary..
Quote:
Also, the acting of the DX series is far inferior to that of System Shock and SS2. Again, this is because SS has a central villain that is far more intimidating than anything concocted before of after. SHODAN is terrifying, with severely harrowing voice work. JC Denton and Walton Simons are total monotones that bore me to death.
I thought the Shodan showdown was the weakest point of SS2, she didn't do anything for me I'm afraid, and the voice seemed cliched. Funny you should complain of monotonous tones, Shodans voice just sounded like a slighly disdainful, almost monotone voice with a few electronic effects thrown in. Maybe if I had played the game when it first came out I might have though differently. None of the DX creations are meant to be omnipotent super villians, just powerful organisations. Certainly Walton Simons is trying to be menacing, but not terrifying.
Quote:
I would like to point out that I am not attempting to bash DX fans, just point out what I find as inadequacies in the game. I still feel though that many DX fans seem to have a built-in disdain of Shock fans.
I have played T2, SS2, DX and DXIW. Loved the first 3 didn't like the fourth.
I really can't see why anyone would try to compare SS and DX so closely, they are different games for which similar methods of gameplay can be used, whether or not someone prefers one theme or voice acting to another seems to be neither here nor there.
:erg:
Wynne on 1/9/2004 at 02:40
Quote Posted by Sumgai
I loved JCs voice in DX! Just enough inflection, but not much emotion so it didn't convey an emotional response, after all your emotions count, not your characters.
I agreed with basically everything you said about Shock vs. Deus Ex... except that. JC would have been better left
unvoiced. The guy did a much better job on Paul, although still not that great.
I have felt plenty of emotion listening to Garrett, and never did it vaguely resemble wishing he was more generic and inflected less. Garrett's emotions DID count, more than anything--he actually made you care not only what happened in the story, but what happened to him--and he is a perfect example of why JC would have been far more interesting as an entity rather than a non-entity.
If I can't play as a girl and really customize my character to have personal traits, then I would far prefer having a main character with
personality. JC had essentially none, so the few times he did show an opinion, it was... jarring. This is one of the few aspects of Deus Ex that bored me or weirded me out instead of entertaining me, that felt shaky instead of innovative. In Shock, I felt like I
was the character, albeit with a rather too masculine grunt when getting hit. In Deus Ex, however, you saw JC in the cutscenes, heard him speak his own dialogue... that's already too personal for him to get away with showing almost no emotion, even over the deaths of people he knew.
I liked most of the main character actors, though. Especially Alex. He was just innately likeable. And Anna and Herman sounded fun to me. Walton Simons was cool in a Mr. Smith kinda way, and Bob Page... uurrrrggghhh, I hated that bastard. Actually, Simons and SHODAN to me both seemed to be so heavily... cyber in nature that a mechanical, cold, mostly emotionless voice only makes sense for them.
ZylonBane on 2/9/2004 at 14:24
Wrong thread, oRGy?
