oqvist on 23/10/2002 at 09:44
Yes, but the reviewers complain was that the developers blow all the polygons on creating huge levels which forced them to make the streets empty. That was how I read it and what was very distracting for me. About linearity and System Shock 2 and Deus Ex. Yes both games are linear which isn´t necessary a bad thing for me. But in System Shock 2 the different upgrades really makes the gameplay totally different and makes for different challenges. That does Deus Ex too in a way but I don´t like how it has being implemented. Deus Ex is more like a good idea which never was realized in full. That is where a different game engine could help a lot in creating life in the levels, so we get rid of that dead feel of the game.
hawkmoon_2six9 on 23/10/2002 at 19:28
It's interesting where this discussion has gone. But getting back to the original point, all of you that suggested that lockpick/multitool scarcity would cease to be an issue were right. I am well into the game and haven't come across any 'locked' thing that I couldn't open one way or another.
And as far as the Thief/Sshock2 vs Deus Ex debate; having finished both Thief games and both System Shocks, I have to say that you cannot really compare them to Deus Ex. Each has it's own feel. Stealth is implemented much better in Thief because that's the whole point of the game.
System Shock 2's strengths lie in the fact that choosing different career paths will genuinely affect what tools and weapons are at your disposal (and hence your style of play). However, most of System Shock 2's objectives are achieved in the same way regardless of your career choice. E.g. you'll have to go to some place and deactivate some mechanism by pushing a button. Now that button will be in some room and there will be a specific path to get to it.
In Deus Ex, while you won't exprience a drastically different playing experience in terms of the equipment/tools you use, you do have multiple ways to complete the same objective. Deus Ex will usually offer the same button pushing scenario differently. E.g. you could approach the room from some roof access, go through the sewers to get to it or try the direct approach by walking through the front door. The difference is that System Shock 2 will (much more drastically and realistically) limit your choices in terms of the no. of ways you can deal with resistance and obstacles like security. Plus System Shock 2 has the creepy atmosphere going for it.
I'm currently enjoying Deus Ex because it has it's own unique qualities. The added interaction with NPCs gives rise to some interesting moral dilemmas at some points. The best way to put it would be to say that Deus Ex provides an experience greater than the sum of its parts simply because no other game attempts to combine so many things in one package. (On a side note: The Ultima Underworlds are still my all time favourite action/adventure/rpg type games)
Comparing the enemy AI in Deus Ex to games like Half-life and Thief brings up its own set of issues. IMHO Half-Life's enemies (esp the marines and assassins) use the environment like crates/walls etc much better. On the other hand Thief's AI was much better at reacting to the player (visibility and noise levels). Enemies in Deus Ex don't react that well on either level.
Aamir
Skilless on 28/10/2002 at 21:27
Hawkmoon,
1. STR: 25% or less; 2 darts from mini-crossbow will open
2. TNT crates are abundant in mission 1: use them against any STR less than INF (infinite). The same is true for; GEP rockets, Sabot rounds, and 20mm explosive rounds in the AR (although only the GEP rocket is found on the first mission).
3. Lockpicks and multitools are in abundance throughout the game. I rarely ever have fewer than 18 (out of a max of 20) of either. As a matter of fact, I'm often disappointed that I can't grab them when I find them, simply because I can't hold any more.
4. Nanokey ring opens many things, saving the need for using "stealthy" means of "breaking and entering"
5. There is a certain "cheat" or "bug" if you will, that lets you open any multitool/lockpick device with only a single multitool/lockpick, regardless of your skill level. But, since you don't want to have to cheat, you should use the choices above.
Being a compulsive/perfectionist gamer myself, its easy to see how you would want to open every single item, door, box, window, elevator, etc. and it is most certainly possible. In fact, as I mention above, it is hard to use up all of the items you are given and I find making inventory choices is the worst thing for us perfectionist/packrats. Of course there is also an inventory "cheat" or "bug", but if you want to play from a combined "purist" and "perfectionist" standpoint, you will have to eventually give up something to make room for something else.
BTW, TNT crates can be transferred between maps/missions as long as you don't have to speak to someone first (which causes you to throw/drop what's in your hands). So, you can take a TNT crate from one area to another, if you find you are unable to open a certain locker, door, etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by oqvist ....
The reason that I got so disappointed was that I really believed in all the hype of the game about how good it was and that it was a bit like system shock 2. ,
DX game is no more linear than SS2 is. There are different approaches (stealthy/thief/non-lethal, sniper/assassin, or tank), and the game is very playable from any of those aspects. SS2 is probably my favorite game (although NWN and DX are close seconds) ever, but it doesn't have that much of an advantage over DX as you seem to think. The AI is still weak, and the only enemies I found at all challenging were the ninjas at the basketball court. The two games DO share several elements; keypads/codes, a personal datastorage & infolink (electronic implants), ways of upgrading your abilities artificially, interactive items (food, plants, vases, picture frames, soda machines, etc.), hacking into systems, several weapon choices based upon how you want to play the game, stealth as a primary factor in completing "missions", etc. The reason I like DX so much is because it is so much like SS2 and Thief (which was probably a groundbreaking game simply becaues it was the first "stealthy" FPS in a 3D environment). Also, I've found several (as in hundreds) of neat little tricks that allow you to access areas and find different ways of completing assignments, whereas in SS2, you had to complete your objectives using your skills, but the linearity was still present. For example, using the speed augmentation and/or LAM-climbing, you can jump to or reach places that you wouldn't get to if you just cruised through the game with the single minded purpose of getting done. DX has tremendous replay value, while playing SS2 three times would pretty much give you all of the value that you could get from the game, and then it wouldn't be very much because you would still know how to address each "obstacle".
The game uses a highly modified UT engine, which was pretty good when it first came out (considering the time from beginning of development to release), and some of the maps are certainly larger than any HL maps. I don't know how anyone can complain about polygon count, considering that when the game first came out, its system requirements were quite high for the time, and you HAVE to realize that the game's developers didn't want to put the game out of reach for the majority of potential players, or else they wouldn't sell enough games to pay for its creation. Its not just about, "what's possible?", but mainly, "what's feasible?" or, "what will offer the best return while still meeting the criteria set forth by the developer?". Go play JKII or UT2003 if you're dissatisfied with your polygon count. And, how realistic is it for a character to face 400,000 soldiers/guards/bots/mechs and still walk away? I'd rather play against fewer "tough" enemies than against 1 billion easy enemies. IF you can avoid detection, you can take down enemies a lot easier, but that's true in real life, and WS wanted to make a game that was halfway believable (although its not CS, that's for sure).
Complaints against DX's AI are hard to justify simply because AI is such an incredibly difficult thing to program. John Carmack said something to the effect that it would be extremely easy to just program the AI to instantly react to the players and be dead-accurate shots (killing the player almost the instant after seeing them), but that would provide zero fun, and the game would inevitably fail on the market. Its so much harder to program the AI to NOT be 100% accurate or to instantly notice a player from 1000 yards. So, game makers have to account for the strength of the consumer's system (AI being directly effected by the processing power of the machine running the game), while also providing the player with a modecum of a chance to "win" and thus provide some fun. I'm sure that WS could have had his team make an AI that would have made finishing even the first mission impossible, but who would buy that? Its a very fine line to walk. Even so, once you are detected in DX, the enemies are uncannily accurate even at great distances (shooting between extremely small spaces with the AR!). Again, considering the time that this game was released, it was probably ahead of its time. Don't forget, WS's idea was to make a stealthy kind of game, so the player will be able complete missions more easily if they use stealth, but they also have a good idea of what is stealthy and what isn't. Thief implemented this with the "darkness" bar at the bottom, while DX seems to go with the FOV (field of view) approach (as long as you are walking or crouching). You have to draw the line somewhere, and even in the games that have come out recently (JKII for one, seems to have a decent enemy AI), allow the player a lot of leeway with regards to what they get away with.
Quote:
...I am serious when I am saying that it is the worst game I have ever played
If you only ever played HL, SS2 and DX, then I might believe this statement. Obviously you never played the "other" ION Storm product, Daikatana, or you would have never made this statement. I'd like you to list 20 other games that are better than DX, since you are "...serious" about DX being the worst game you ever played. The combination of graphics, storyline, interaction, physics, interface, and replayability certainly make it one of the all-time greats. Finding ONE site that agrees with you isn't good enough. If 1000 sites gave DX a 9, and you and one site gave it a 6, or whatever, I'd tend to believe the majority (the 1000 good ratings). You might have a beef with this game for some reason (it feels "dead"?), but you are in the very, very small minority on this one.
oqvist on 29/10/2002 at 17:33
I ain´t saying that ss2 is less linear as Deux Ex. I ain´t saying that I am an enemy to linearity either, it generally just means that the games get less replayable.
This quote I found really funny. Did John Carmack really said this?
Complaints against DX's AI are hard to justify simply because AI is such an incredibly difficult thing to program. John Carmack said something to the effect that it would be extremely easy to just program the AI to instantly react to the players and be dead-accurate shots (killing the player almost the instant after seeing them), but that would provide zero fun, and the game would inevitably fail on the market. Its so much harder to program the AI to NOT be 100% accurate or to instantly notice a player from 1000 yards.
Quake III ARENA anyone single player bots, they are exactly such as he says provides zero fun :cheeky:
About Deus Ex being the worst game I ever played. Well it´s really the most disappointing game I have ever played and how it totally fails to create a believable world is what is the worst. That is where the AI and the million of boxes and game engine comes in.
What I don´t like about the game engine has nothing to do with fps to do. It´s obvious that they thought creating huge levels was so fun that they didn´t populate the city and just left them empty and even admit it in the first level where you here people saying that the streets are empty because of the bla bla bla. And how the alternative routes are done it is far to obvious and again doesn´t make me feel that I am in anything other than a pc game.
Here is a list of better fps I have played and are better. No ranking or order.
DOOM I and II
System Shock 2
Thief 1 and 2
noone lives forever
red faction
half life
rainbow 6
rogue spear
jedi knight 1 and 2
dark forces
duke nukem 3d
quake 2
rtcw
medal of honour
sof 1 and 2
I admit I haven´t played Daikatana and from what I have heard of the games I never will :cheeky:
otherwise I can´t really find a fps I liked less than Deus Ex, maybe someone could help me?
It is not impossible I will get Deus Ex 2 though I will wait until I can get them as a budget buy so I am not getting so disappointed.
dormcat on 30/10/2002 at 05:17
Hi oqvist,
Looks like all examples you gave are FPS with little or no RPG/advanture element (except SS2). How about give us some expamples for non-FPS games, like traditional RPG and advanture? IMHO, DX isn't as good as
Quake series for "traditional" FPS
R6/RS series for tactical FPS
Ultima and Fallout series for RPG
Monkey Island series for advanture
but DX blends all of them so well, making it the best of "all" worlds. Only UW is comparable at this aspect.
BTW, although I'm a veteran from UWs/SSs/DX, I found Thief very hard to get into....:(
Skilless on 30/10/2002 at 15:19
Quote:
DOOM I and II
System Shock 2
Thief 1 and 2
noone lives forever
red faction
half life
rainbow 6
rogue spear
jedi knight 1 and 2
dark forces
duke nukem 3d
quake 2
rtcw
medal of honour
sof 1 and 2
SS1/2, Thief 1/2, HL, MoH:AA, SoF, Duke and NOLF are all good choices, in my opinion. RtCW and Q2 were certainly not as entertaining as DX, with little or no replayability. I think that iD simply makes games so that others will use their engines to make "good" games. Personally, I like the fact that DX allows you to make some choices about how you play and what kind of player you are. SS2 excelled at this, and if SS2 is the measuring stick, then I think that DX has come as close as any. Plus, DX allowed you to solve the same problem in different ways, while the same could not be said for SS2. The, "run here, push button, run back two levels, pull lever, run up to second floor, switch on generator, return to exit" syndrome is very prevalent in SS2. Without a doubt, DX allows you to solve the vast majority of problems multiple ways. In addition, the great things about Thief (stealth, non-lethal takedowns) are also implemented in DX.
If you liked Thief and SS2, how can you dislike a game that took the great elements from those games and added to them to make a new game? I think that Warren Spector (Ultima Underworld, too) is just plain genius.
The only thing I found unbelievable about DX was the first mission. If the NSF had just suffered an attack from UNATCO, why would all of these NSF be just walking around without cover. Not to mention, that the UNATCO HQ is 50' from this hostile takeover! And, how in the hell did those wimpy NSF guards capture Gunter? Anyway, once I got past that, I really don't have any complaints (well, maybe Hong Kong is way small, but hey, who wants to walk 30 minutes just to get to your next rendevous?).
Yeah, John Carmack said something to that effect. The bots in single player ARE tough, but not too bad. They are certainly good preparation for multiplayer DM. UT was the same way, the boss on the final training mission (forget name now) was pretty nasty.
Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. DX to me was on par with SS2 and Thief, and I find replaying to be a blast. The first time I played it, I believed that stealth and non-lethal was the way to go, but now that I've replayed it a few times, I find it more fun to get into better position and take out my enemies with snipering or the stealth pistol or TNT crates or whatever.
oqvist on 30/10/2002 at 17:06
About the quake III ARENA bot thing
There is a huge difference between the bots in the UT and Q3A. In UT the bots need to see and react you to get a shot on you and they don´t always nail you with 150 precision in your head. In Q3A they don´t even has to see and have like 0 reaction time to hit you right in the forehead. That makes the bots in UT much more humanlike, and that John Carmack is making that statement is like his dizzing his own game!!!
About Deus Ex I was so sure it would be my type of game since thief 2 and ss2 was so awesome and still is. It´s just that Deus Ex let´s you ask so many questions like why is there crates everywhere just laying on the ground and containing weapons and such. That work in a quake-like game but not a game with rpg-elements. In system shock for example you are in a spaceship in chaos and thus it´s ok.
You are right about quake 2 - no replayability there, but at the time it was released it was still a great game even if I don´t want to play the game for 5 min:s today. I would much rather just playing doom or duke nukem 3d again for that kind of pure hardcore shoot em up.
And oh I forgot unreal tournament and unreal on the list.
Skilless on 30/10/2002 at 17:51
Yeah, the crates being around (TNT and items, not the metal "regular" crates) just any old place is kinda weird, and its a wonder that they are even in crates, when just putting them out in the open would be just as effective. I mean, if you can use a baton or crowbar (which use no ammo) to open them, what is the purpose? To hide the contents? I guess WS wanted to make it look like the "organization" that is in control of that area dropped off the crate to be used, but you have to wonder why the guards didn't divvy up the goods when they got them. For me, that didn't really take away from the "suspension of disbelief" because I've seen a lot worse, and the pluses of DX far outweigh the minuses for me.
The only other thing I can think of that bothers me about DX is that you can't enter ANY building that you want to. There are lots of places you can get to that I'm sure the designers didn't want you to be, but when you see buildings with window tiles, but you can't break into them, it kinda bothers me. That is something that very few games had/have so its a widespread "problem", and offhand I can only think of one, Daggerfall, that really allowed you full access to any building in the game. But, as I said, for me, the pluses far outweigh the minuses in DX.
ferret on 2/11/2002 at 18:04
Hmm. Deus Ex was designed by a bunch of people who wanted to make a deep game. They didn't worry too much about the AI, and that's one of the things that has come up in interviews. It just wasn't that important to them. They concentrated rather more on gameplay. This is somewhat admittedly a mistake, no-one anywhere can say that a strength of Deus Ex is the AI. This is something that will be utterly perfected in the sequel, no two ways about it.
*sigh*, I can't even think about Deus Ex 2 without feeling wistful, happy, and excited. :D
tripwood on 2/11/2002 at 20:34
got that right about the AI, but what will happen when in FPS games, we won't be able to hide securly at the bottom of ladder shafts because they mysteriously can't seem to use the ladders they should have used to climb up, and expect ennemy to come DIRECTLY where you are when you make some noise instead of looking around five feet around themselves? :0 it's gonna be scarily hard.
bah, who needs lockpicks, get yourself a nice gep gun and no door will stand in your way. :laff:
