ZylonBane on 11/11/2008 at 21:21
Quote Posted by Matthew
Yeah, I knew that she could be manoeuvred into opening the UNATCO door for you, but I always assumed that was an exploit rather than a purposeful choice inserted into the game.
It is an exploit. The fact that there's code in the game to handle it is a reflection of the development process-- Someone didn't want the game crashing or responding in an obviously wrong way if someone else decided to add the explicit possibility of Anna surviving.
DDL on 11/11/2008 at 22:40
Nicely, they also saw fit to make sure Gunther doesn't mention "avenging her" if you don't kill her.
So yeah: they definitely considered it (either that or it was originally intended to be easier to avoid killing her).
heywood on 12/11/2008 at 00:47
Quote Posted by Chade
This ancient article should be, I hope, interesting to people who insist on believing that diferences between DX and DX3's design happen because the designers "must not be fans of DX". I think it calls bullshit on that point regardless of whether the central assertion is true or not.
(
http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/05/deus_triple_ex.html)
The blogger's suggestion that Eidos would be willing to take a loss on DX3 to woo developers is just stupid. Almost as stupid as using a post from some blogger 18 months ago when DX3 was just a rumor to counter statements from the lead designer in a recent interview.
Chade on 12/11/2008 at 01:35
I was hoping that my comment about the central assertion not having to be true would deflect that critisicm.
The sole point of linking to that article in this context is to show that the designers will likely be DX fans. This doesn't necesarily lead to DX3 being a "true DX game", and I don't intend to counter statements in recent interviews. I do intend to counter some of the more idiotic and baseless extrapolations that some people here have made about the designers based on these interviews.
Regarding "the bloggers" suggestion being idiotic, perhaps you are right ... on the other hand, Clint Hocking is coming from a much more informed background then you or me, so I don't think it is smart to simply dismiss the idea out of hand. It's certainly not unreasonable to think that attracting dev talent was one consideration.
heywood on 12/11/2008 at 02:26
OK, forget about the central assertion. It's still a blog post from 18 months ago when the author had nothing to go on but "3rd or 4th hand rumors" that Eidos Montreal would be working on the game. So it's nothing but idle speculation.
On the other hand, we have the lead designer saying things like:
- The shooting aspect in Deux Ex was very weak
- The augmentations were not very rewarding
- The pace was kinda slow
- There weren't enough exciting/memorable moments
- It was aimed more towards a simulation than a game experience
- IW was too sci-fi
And the Edge article says "The team at Eidos Montreal certainly knows the previous games well, and has a healthily critical attitude to them."
The author then basically dismisses fans as being stymied by nostalgia.
I do believe the developers ARE excited to be working on the game, but these statements highlight a big disconnect between the fans and the developers over what made the original great. And in this case, the fan viewpoints can't simply be dismissed as nostalgia, because we're still playing the game.
Chade on 12/11/2008 at 02:49
That's PR for you. Developers are going to try to sell their decisions as being ok for hardcore people. That's the only sort of publicity that matters at this early stage.
But the developers are employed to make a game that makes ROI, using their best professional opinion about what decisions will do. Now we've all had plenty of arguments about whether the DX formula is profitable in todays market. That's irrelevant to my point. The only point I want to make is that being a massive DX fan doesn't necesarily lead to making DX3 just like DX.
That doesn't mean that being a fan of the original won't come out in some ways ... and we've heard some exciting things ... but it's not going to stop them from trying to replace game mechanics in DX with comparable mechanics that they obviously hope will make more sense to a wider audience (line of sight stealth, cover system, etc).
So I don't believe there is any disconnect. Just developers trying their level best to make and market a modern day triple AAA sequel to DX.
Silkworm on 12/11/2008 at 03:34
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Yes, the
initial fights. My point was that sooner or later, you do have to confront these characters, though it's now clear I was wrong about having to kill Gunther and Simons.
...which still doesn't have anything to do with the argument that they were typical boss fights. All I can say is that Warren Spector himself has stated that one of the intentional design principles behind Deus Ex is to allow players to sidestep or work around many of the apparent combat aspects of the game, and to avoid directly rewarding players for killing human beings.
Yes, its probably true that Anna Navarre was intended to actually die (although I would argue that the code that keeps Gunther from mentioning avenging her death implies otherwise), but even then she can be killed by words, and that is not by any means cliche in videogames.
Ostriig on 13/11/2008 at 17:23
Quote Posted by Silkworm
...which still doesn't have anything to do with the argument that they were typical boss fights.
Which is an argument that, once again, I never made. I am well aware of how very different Deus Ex's implementation is, all I am stating is that at their core, these encounters were still based around the concept of "boss fights".
DDL on 13/11/2008 at 18:11
In as much as I guess if you were forced to call them ANYTHING, 'boss fights' is as good a choice as any. "Significant encounter" is slightly closer to the truth, maybe.
I mean, technically you could call the fight with Manderley a boss fight (he is, after all, your actual boss). Of course, that one's optional, but the concept amused me.
So yes: you could say DX has boss fights, but as you note, they're clearly not boss fights in the traditional sense. For a start, they're largely avoidable (not always trivially, mind you), also, they don't 'require NPC to die to open door to continue' or anything, and more importantly: in keeping with the 'keep it largely realistic' ethos, they're not actually very tough. They might be augmented people, and certainly tougher than generic_MJ12troop_09, but they're still people. Fling a LAM at any of them and they...get blown up. Job done. Shoot them in the face with a clip of ammo from almost any gun (alright, not the PS20) and they die.
And IW did the same, which was great. How many other games allow you to 'accidentally' kill the two leaders of the illuminati with a single mis-aimed grenade?
So when the devs suggest they're implementing 'boss fights', it sort of suggests that they don't consider the original games to contain any real boss fights. Which means DX3 might have super-tough flying missile-launching three-stages-of-destruction bosses.
And mechanically augmented ones, no less.
Which is worrisome.
van HellSing on 13/11/2008 at 18:52
By the way, René posted his boss comment once again, in a slightly modified form:
Quote Posted by René
Deus Ex 1 had boss fights. Walton Simons, Gunther Hermann, etc. They just weren't the Zelda "hit the boss in the eye three times to kill it" kind of boss fight, and neither is Deus Ex 3's.
Though I'm not sure there's a point in me even posting this, since it's like talking to a brick wall. It's like "No Transgenics Allowed" or something. :nono:
