van HellSing on 4/2/2009 at 15:15
Sorry, but I just hate it when people start acting like DX3 is a Gears of War clone, or Vegas, or whatever game they don't like because of one or two controversial features, and completely ignore all other aspects that were revealed.
Papy on 4/2/2009 at 17:41
No shadows, TPP "cover system", not skill based for shooting, regenerative health so we don't have to search for medkits, no localized damage, now I hear it will be more action oriented and having squads with leaders and boss fights... for fuck sake what's left of it from a gameplay point of view? If you played Deus Ex as a fast action game then I guess you can happy, but I mostly play Deus Ex as a slow stealth game. Where is the game I liked? The story and the setting seem to be there, but the gameplay isn't. If you have any information about the stealth gameplay of Deus Ex, then please tell it to me because that's what I want to hear.
BTW, here's another question I'd like to know, and indirectly that's a very important one as it will tell me the philosophy of the game : will Deus Ex 3 have guns with random dispersion depending on your skill (we already know it won't be the case) and movement (like Deus Ex), or will it be a pure shooters where your bullets always go where you click?
Edit: Another question because it will be an indication of the philosophy of the game : will we be able to swap our augmentations like IW or will it be permanent like Deus Ex?
van HellSing on 4/2/2009 at 18:30
1. No, not "no shadows". No darkness-based stealth. Which is silly in a non-magical setting anyway. There's line of sight stealth a'la Metal Gear Solid. If that's not your favourite type of stealth, pity, but as had been pointed out, line of sight was more important in DX1 than darkness.
2. TPP cover system - yeah, an optional one which you don't have to use if you don't want to. You can play as usual.
3. No skill based shooting - thank Flying Spaghetti Monster. That was one of the most awful things in DX. Also, we're not playing as a rookie this time, for once. Modifiers based on movement still apply, plus there are weapon mods that increase accuracy. (I guess this answers the BTW bit).
4. Regenerative health - yeah, that's the one I hate most myself. We don't know how it will work though - maybe you can't use other augs when using regeneration, or something like that.
5. No localised damage - this is just speculation right now, based on regenerating health. We'll see.
6. More action orientated - it will be a better shooter? Well whoop dee do, that's good, since the shooting aspect was lacking in DX.
7. Squads with identifiable leaders - what the hell is wrong with that? It adds to the gameplay if anything. Imagine if the hotel breakout in DX1 had squad-based enemies with good AI coordinated by a leader. Shoot the leader, and they loose coordination, making them easier to kill. Sounds good?
8. Boss fights - as had been said, DX1 had boss fights. Also, we already know there will be multiple ways of dealing with bosses in DX3. Also, the difficulty will be scaled based on your playstyle.
9. Fast action game etc - well, that's the crux of it. I play DX slowly and methodically usually. But when I try a shooter playstyle, I find it hard because of some gameplay aspects like the aforementioned skill-based shooting. If DX3 can properly balance different playstyles, that's awesome. And this is one of the design goals - to provide at least 3 different, equally viable, solutions to any situation.
***
And now some stuff from me: why is it that while discussing DX3 gameplay people always focus on shooting, stealth and health?
Why is there no discussion of the dialogue system, which looks promising? Or the city hub system? The hacking (more-than-a-)minigame?
Why claim the game is a shooter when Eidos, by Rene's mouth, call it "an RPG. An action/RPG like the first one (Deus Ex)."?
Hmm, by the way, I see you haven't posted in the "What René said" thread Papy. Have you read it? It might answer some of your questions. It's also probably more reliable than magazine previews which tend to skew info, misquote etc.
(
http://ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123915) the thread
d'Spair on 4/2/2009 at 20:07
I suspect van HellSing has been hired by Eidos as a propaganda manager :eww:
van HellSing on 4/2/2009 at 20:48
They pay me in cherry coke.
Papy on 4/2/2009 at 21:12
1. The core of stealth gameplay is to be able to observe without being seen, so you can plan and time your actions depending on what's around you. I know several people claim that darkness-based stealth is unrealistic, but that's plain ignorance. When doing my military service, we once had an exercise where we had to guard our HQ while knowing some green berets might attack us (it was in fact an exercise for those green berets). Basically, I was like all those NPC in Deus Ex, patrolling and being on the lookout for enemies. Let me say just this : darkness-based stealth works. (BTW, I still remember FFOMECBLOT, which in English could be translated with Background-Form-Shadow-Movement-Sparkle-Color-Sound-Light-Odor-Traces... I'll let you guess what it was about and what kind of exercise we were doing when using this.)
I do agree that you couldn't use darkness-based stealth gameplay all the time with Deus Ex (I don't think it was a problem), but does it means it's ok to remove it?
2) The TPP cover system is optional as in : you have the option to charge with your gun blazing or use the TPP cover system to take a look before. I absolutely do not like shooters where the only thing you do is press forward, aim and click. I like games where I think at least a little bit. That means I will have no choice but to use the TPP cover system. This is not a choice at all.
The whole point of TPP is really to replace darkness-based stealth. Why they did this is quite obvious : darkness-based stealth is a lot more difficult than the cover system. As an example, I now know Liberty Island very well. I know where guards are, I know what is the best approach, and yet it still takes me almost two hours to do the level. The reason is I can only observe in darkness from afar, then move closer, keep a mental image of the situation and rely on sound to know when the guard is turning around. So it means that when I'm close, I also have to spend some times to get use to sound level. And even with all that time used to plan my attack, I know there's always a risk I might be doing a mistake, there is always some stress because sound is imprecise. (I might add that I never save in the middle of a level, and as we can die from a single bullet with Deus Ex, this makes the action quite stressful - which is what I like).
Now take the same situation with TPP cover. I don't need to observe from afar, I just go straight to the wall, I "look" at the guards without any problem, I see exactly when he turns around and just take him out at that instant. Easy, fun, no stress. Do you understand the difference?
3) You say "Thank Spaghetti Monster" about skill based shooting? We obviously have different taste. Good for you that Deus Ex 3 will be different, but that was one of the thing I liked with Deus Ex. So when I complain that Deus Ex 3 gameplay is not the same as Deus Ex, please, agree with me.
4) The devs said the goal of regenerative health was to make sure the player doesn't have to search for health packs. There's not a lot of room for interpretation as for what it will do to the gameplay. The intent is pretty much clear to me. Saying "we don't know..." is just wishful thinking.
5) No localised damage is speculation? From other comments it seemed to me it was pretty much a fact. Ok, I'll take it back then.
6) More action oriented doesn't mean "better shooter", it means more of a shooter. Anyway, I don't think Deus Ex was lacking as a shooter. It was well balance. So what do you mean with making a better shooter? Do I have to remind you that Deus Ex was an hybrid RPG-Shooter? If you want the RPG part to be replaced only with some superficial elements, then fine, but don't disagree with people who say that Deus Ex 3 does not have the same gameplay as Deus Ex.
7) The first thing wrong with squad leader is it seems idiotic. Kill the leader and the 6 or 7 other NPC suddenly don't know what to do? Are they some kind of robots controlled by a mother ship or something? Having said that, as I'm not someone who's strong on realism I might accept this kind gameplay (although in my mind this is more at home in an RTS than in a game like Deus Ex). The problem I have with squad and leaders is Deus Ex was mostly a one on one fights (unless you were the run and gun kind of guy, meaning you were dying and reloading a lot). There are few parts where we had to attack a group of people, but when it happened it was mostly in confined area with one point of entry (or a neat place to throw a gas greande), or we had a safe place to retreat. Deus Ex was not Doom. So why this needs for this feature? I can only come to the conclusion that Deus Ex 3 gameplay will be different. Instead of one on one where you can die easily, it will be you against an army where you are a fridge. Do you have another explanation?
8) The first time I played Deus Ex, I use the killswitch of Gunther and Anna. Which means there was only Simons left. There was one boss fight. If that's what they mean, then great, but I seriously doubt it. Of course I could use my imagination, do some wishful thinking, cover my ear with my hands and shout "lalalalala", but... that's not really what I do.
9) I don't like when I can do whatever I want in a game. It just make the game boring. With Deus Ex, some way of playing particular levels were superior to others. If you decided at the start of Liberty Island to run and shoot like you would do with Doom, you would get killed. The slow stealth approach was clearly superior. On the opposite, sometimes it was best to use a sniper riffle and there was even one time when using a flamethrower was by far the easiest solution. My goal as a player was to choose the best solution, not to do whatever I wanted. I want the game to present with a problem, and I want to find a solution to that problem. I want the game to be more than just aim and click. To me, to properly balance each play style is what transform a game into a dumb pastime. Deus Ex was a game, not a pastime.
10) About the dialog system... I'm sorry, but facial expression looks to me like as a sure way for a fiasco. They will most certainly exaggerate those expression (otherwise the 14 years old kid might miss them) and it will make the NPC ridiculous. For now that's the only detail I know about that dialog system, so if you have more info (not some generic : "it's awesome" kind of thing), than please share.
11) About what "René" said... RPG is a term which designate a lot of things. I just tried a bejeweled clone which was marketed has being a mix of RPG and puzzle game. It was a fucking Bejeweled clone. So basically, the fact that René call Deus Ex an Action/RPG means absolutely nothing to me.
12) Yes, I read the "What René said" thing, but it smells marketing and fanboyism. I judge on facts, not on some broad and empty claim. "Our hacking is well beyond a "mini game" and is really freaking cool." doesn't mean anything to me. What does it means to you?
I think my real problem with "René" is his description of the game is mostly about saying this thing is "cool" and that other thing is "awesome". Sorry, but I'm not 14 anymore. This simply doesn't work.
Ostriig on 4/2/2009 at 23:05
van Hellsing - I've generally agreed with you that a lot of what's been said about the upcoming DX3 has been taken a lot worse than it should have, and that many people were far too quick to condemn the game despite knowing little about. This time around, however, you're off-base. Many of those displeasing elements might be fairly defensible on their own, but when taken all together they're more than the sum of their parts - they paint a picture of a general direction that is very different to that of the first game, at least in terms of how it plays. Yes, some of those bullet points aren't valid, with stuff like "no localised damage" being unheard of before, and "boss battles" having been discussed to death with the conclusion being that it could very well take the same form as in the original. But when you turn to others, like "multi kills", "third person contextual actions", "health regen", etc. they contribute to that image that's got so many of us worried. While we're at it, DX's shooting system was by far the very best implementation of RPG concepts within a core FPS mechanic to date.
Moving on to what René says, I like the guy as a PR agent, I think he's been quite forthcoming with information and quick to try to alleviate concerns and answer questions. And yeah, I do think his reception on this forum was a bit colder than it should've been. But make no mistake, promoting the game to the fan community is right there on top of his job description sheet and being able to put a positive spin on things is a relevant skill.
Now, to answer your question on why people focus on the negative aspects that are emerging, rather than the positive one - it's because the good things don't worry us, naturally.
Oh, and "darkness-based stealth is silly in a non-magical setting"? I was going to make a mean comment, but I'll just leave it down to you not having thought things straight when stating that.
Chade on 5/2/2009 at 00:09
Ignoring the DX brand for a moment, it certainly sounds like it has the potential to be an awesome game.
Even from the point of view of being a "DX" game, there has been some hugely positive news that I'm really excited about (dialogue mods? Sounds right up the DX alley. Walking on walls? Likewise.).
But overall it definately sounds like they want to emphasise the "visually exciting" and "active" aspects of being a kick-ass augmentated agent. Even the cover based stealth sounds like it will have the player moving around a lot more then was necesary when you could lurk in a dark corner with impunity. This is a bit dissapointing.
On average, however, I am pretty happy with what I hear.
van HellSing on 5/2/2009 at 01:05
About the hacking - it's one of the things René claims he can't talk about since it was exclusive magazine info. Anyway, I've read that article. The hacking is some sort of rts. It doesn't stop the timeflow of the game, so you have to be weary of patrols near the computer you're hacking. Sounds good to me. Anyway, when you can't describe something because of an NDA, what else can you say except "cool" and "awesome"?
Also: I'm not a superoptimistic fanboy. I have my own doubts. I remember IW, I remember Bioshock. (And yes, I also remember Thief 3, but I actually liked that game.) But I'm still willing to give Eidos Montreal the benefit of doubt. Especially that previews really can skew our perception: for example, one of the most discussed augs as the wall walking. The first preview made it sound lice some Doctor Octopus tentacles, the most recent article describes something more along the lines of a more traditional descent support.
Chade: I think that's a healthy attitude. Like with Fallout 3.
I must confess here that I'm not exactly the model Deus Ex fan. I thought the story of DX was pretty mediocre and not presented in a believable way, I could harp endlessly on pretty much every aspect of the game - graphics uglier than the first Unreal, while supposedly working on a better version of the same engine, atrocious animation, ridiculously cheesy music, bad AI, flawed gameplay... but somehow, this doesn't change the fact that the synthesis of all those flawed elements still somehow produced a good game. It just has the spark.
So, I may not be expecting a "true sequel" to Deus Ex at all - one which has to be 100% true to the source material, get all in-universe dates etc correct (something that DX never did itself! Lots of internally conflicting stuff in the game), I don't expect the exact same gameplay with some minor additions, I don't expect Alex Brandon to compose music sounding like a soundtrack to an 80s corny sci-fi flick (I liked his IW stuff better than his DX stuff. There, I've said it.)
I just expect a good cyberpunk themed genre hybrid. So far I like most of what I've read/seen.
DDL on 5/2/2009 at 09:53
Quote Posted by van HellSing
graphics uglier than the first Unreal, while supposedly working on a better version of the same engine
Not sure this is a valid comparison. Everyone knows what a real subway station looks like so comparing real life with DX is easy.
But how many real Nali villages have you seen?
And honestly, I played unreal after DX, and found unreal to be far uglier, graphically.
Quote:
atrocious animation
Again: making alien models animate convincingly is a hell of a lot easier than making human models animate convincingly. If you honestly think the player models from Unreal look better than..say..any NPC in DX, then I'm frankly astounded.
Quote:
ridiculously cheesy music
Are we even talking about the same game anymore?
Hahahhaha ok. I prefer the term "ambitious": the AI is actually impressively clever, but tries to do far too many things, rather than trying to do one or two things well.
Honestly, I'm pretty amazed you liked DX at all.
