NEO Plus 10 page DX3 article

Eldron on 14/6/2010 at 07:11

Quote Posted by Jason Moyer

Yeah. I mentioned Rainbow Six Vegas because it works exactly the way they describe the DXHR system (it goes to third person in cover, and is first person otherwise) but Bloodlines does it too for the stealth/melee bits. On the other hand, I found that annoying as hell for some reason.

Try to look past it. For example I couldn't play many infinity engine games for such a long time due to the tiny fact of there being a party, I was so into solo immersive rpg's like daggerfall/systemshock and couldn't get into it.

The day I could really see past such things that really had to do with myself, I could start enjoying those games and not being annoyed by it.

mothra on 14/6/2010 at 10:38

Quote Posted by Yakoob

Bloodlines has mixed TPP and FPP quite often and yet it was easily one of the...

worst realized version of it, made the game suffer from it and certainly hampered its success. over the years I came to ignore its bad 3rd person camera setup and just roll with it. which does not make it better in any way.
Immersion in e.g. Bloodlines, AlphaProtocol come from their stories and characters, on an emotional level. Flawless immersion on an visual level is more ... STALKER, Call of Cthulu, Mirrors Edge than Bloodlines...

YogSo on 14/6/2010 at 12:02

Quote Posted by Yakoob

Bloodlines has mixed TPP and FPP quite often and yet it was easily one of the most immersive games ever.

And the best sequel* we've ever had to Deus Ex... for the time being.

For me, the important question about this issue is if it's automatically triggered (like the blackjack in vanilla Deadly Shadows) or not. If it's the first case, then that is a gamey mechanic that breaks the immersion by restricting player choice and expression. Ergo, a bad thing.

If, on the other hand, the player chooses when to do one of this "fatalities"/stealth attacks and then the camera switches to TPP for <s>cinematic</s> <i>coolness</i> effect... well, I can live with that. The changes in perspective didn't annoy me at all either during the dialogues in the original Deus Ex or, in another game not yet mentioned, Escape from Butcher Bay, where it happened everytime Riddick entered a hatch or climbed a ladder (or had a dialogue).

*OK, more like a true "spiritual succesor", but whatever.

van HellSing on 14/6/2010 at 13:56

Quote Posted by YogSo

For me, the important question about this issue is if it's automatically triggered (like the blackjack in vanilla Deadly Shadows) or not. If it's the first case, then that is a gamey mechanic that breaks the immersion by restricting player choice and expression. Ergo, a bad thing.

If, on the other hand, the player chooses when to do one of this "fatalities"/stealth attacks and then the camera switches to TPP for <s>cinematic</s> <i>coolness</i> effect...

I don't get the distinction you're making here. In DS, you get in range, get a visual confirmation of that (Garrett raising his blackjack/dagger), then tap the key for performing the stun/kill. And that fits uour second description as well (except the camera shift bit).

In DX3, you get in range (while sneaking or not), and tap the key to stun, or hold it to kil, which leads to different, context-based (eg. different for backstab/full frontal assault) tpp animations. There will probably be some visual confirmation of range too.

Ostriig on 14/6/2010 at 14:08

Quote Posted by chris the cynic

@ Ostriig

I have yet to meet a work of fiction (note that that includes books, which can use footnotes) that explains everything. I have yet to meet a good work of fiction that even tried.

[...]

Rather than think the lack of explanation was due to less than solid writing, you've put your imagination into high gear and come up with your own explanation which you've gone on and on about for post after post. Your entire thing about marketing is not in any way supported by the game, but you're saying, supporting and strenuously defending it anyway.

If you put that same amount of thought, effort and unbridled imagination into finding a reason for one of the other two things the game asserts about augmentation without explanation do you really think you wouldn't be able to come up with a viable reason for it to be the way the game says it is?

As near as I can tell you are willing to independently come up with a way to explain things that you like when the game offers no explanation for them, but when there is something you don't like as much with the same lack of explanation you reject it on the grounds that it lacks explanation.

You're losing track of what my claim has been in this argument - it isn't that the plot and setting for DX3 will make sense in the established fiction thanks to this or that explanation, is that it could make sense. If I can reasonably find my way through the original DX plot holes, or otherwise vague points, in the time it takes to think up a forum post then I'm sure there's a fair chance that EM might be able to come up in three years with a similar or even better way to integrate DX3 within the continuity. You've picked and put up an expansive collection of details arguing against this or that point of the setting as we can see it's shaping up, but due to lack of further supporting fiction from the original game itself for them, none have formed a definitive and conclusive rebuttal to these new setting elements in a manner that they absolutely couldn't be worked around and that they'd altogether break the prequel from DX.

I'm sure that, regardless of how well EM do, there will be points and details that will grate against the original setting and timeline, but the overall product may well fit into the familiar continuity smoothly enough nonetheless. Then again, it may not, but my entire argument here is that it is premature to decide one way or the other, and that stating that "this can't be Deus Ex" is being overly negative at this point.

YogSo on 14/6/2010 at 15:23

Quote Posted by van HellSing

It was my fault. I shouldn't have mixed together two different things. I don't mind the TPP camera shift (and I loved the stealth kills with the katana in Bloodlines). The problem with the blackjack in TDS is that the player is restricted to use it only when in range and only for a knockout, so it doesn't feel like the other weapons Garrett/the player can use when and how he wants. No aerial blackjacks, no attacking head on with the blackjack, just a "gamey" mechanic of waiting for the trigger to give the player permission to use the blackjack with a 100 % success chance...

chris the cynic on 14/6/2010 at 16:05

Quote Posted by Ostriig

but due to lack of further supporting fiction from the original game itself for them

This, more than anything, is what I don't follow.

They said, in writing, in Deus Ex we did Y because X is true. Human Revolution is saying X is not true (and has been visibly untrue for a quarter century.)

What more support could there be?

Y is true.
Y -> X
Thus not-X is false.
Is about as straightforward and sound as a logical argument will ever get.

That's why I picked the MiBs as an example. You don't have to look at graphics from the late 90s and try to figure out what they're supposed to depict, technology limitations were not a factor because it is stated in text, you don't have to try generalize from the three examples of mechs we get to see, you don't have to make assumptions about marketing or business models or human nature. You've got it spelled out for you.

I'm having trouble imagining how it would be possible to support the idea that mechs were like that more than saying they are and pointing out that MJ12 created something entirely new to the world because mechs were like that so that every time you see one of the (frequent) examples of that new thing it is a reminder that mechs are like that*.

Yes, that new thing is something you consider "a complete cheesefest", but that's not what is at issue here. What is at issue is that Deus Ex says they exist and that they exist for a specific set of reasons. If Human Revolution contradicts those reasons (which it does) then Human Revolution contradicts Deus Ex.

It is to early to judge whether this contradiction makes Human Revolution better or worse than it would have been if it hadn't contradicted Deus Ex (or if the good and bad canceled out and the result was a wash) but it is not to early to judge that there is contradiction. Even if the contradiction results in "consolidation and improvement" it is still a contradiction.

-

*Now, to be clear, it would be relatively easy to modify Deus Ex to fit Human Revolution in this matter. If Human Revolution came first and Deus Ex came second you could still have MiBs that were pretty much exactly the same, all you'd need to do is come up with a different set of reasons for them to be made. That would be easy. The problem isn't that you couldn't make the contradiction go away with a bit of clever writing, the problem is that the nature of the contradiction means that that bit of writing would need to be in Deus Ex.

negativeliberty on 15/6/2010 at 01:30

Quote Posted by YogSo

I'm very curious as to what exactly you point is here. TDS had bad blackjack mechanics, which was a direct result of accommodating third-person view, yet you're arguing that third-person doesn't break immersion?

However, TDS for all its faults at least allowed the player to have a choice between 1st and 3rd person. DXHR will not offer that choice, want to use cover? (no lean keys as consoles don't have enough buttons) Third-person. Want to use a particular augmentation? Third-person. Want to avoid guns and stealthily knock someone out or whatever? Third-person.

You can not honestly say VTMB's system is a good example here. While I love VTMB for everything it did right, it went oh so horribly wrong when it comes to combat: First person gameplay is fun, although the stat-based shooting takes getting used to as with DX, however third-person mucked it up good. Third-person melee combat is utterly boring, feels clumsy and inaccurate, animations are jerky, it's unsatisfying and to be honest if gunplay wasn't so underpowered by comparison I wouldn't have bothered with it at all. To be fair Vampire does come from a tradition of third-person role-playing game, but if you ask me they should've gone all the way and made it entirely first-person, it would've simply been a much better game and many of the problems it was plagued by would've vanished. It would've probably gone a long way towards a much better reception by both the press and the public, as it was described to be the game's biggest and most annoying shortfall.

Oddly the team behind DXHR don't seem to be particularly interested in learning from PC gaming's advances, nor from other games' faults.

Thirith on 15/6/2010 at 06:46

Quote Posted by negativeliberty

Oddly the team behind DXHR don't seem to be particularly interested in learning from PC gaming's advances, nor from other games' faults.

Can you specify this? I'm asking because so often "not learning from PC gaming's advances" and "other games' faults" tend to translate into "things I didn't like about game X", and I'd want to make sure that this isn't the case here.

Matthew on 15/6/2010 at 07:22

Quote Posted by negativeliberty

if you ask me they should've gone all the way and made it entirely first-person, it would've simply been a much better game and many of the problems it was plagued by would've vanished.

I enjoy third-person or switchable games, particularly if there is swordfighting involved, so I guess I can't really agree with your opinion on this one. FP is a bit clumsy for anything more than one-on-one work in my very humble view.