june gloom on 28/11/2011 at 21:26

---

I'm sure you felt good doing it, too.

Skinner's pigeon on 29/11/2011 at 04:58

---

Before I start, I'll get what I liked in DX:HR out of the way:

- Decent combat

- Multiple approaches

- The conversational minigame


Now to the things I didn't ask for, along with my rage ranking:

1. The replacement of melee with cinematic takedowns--messy and violent yet totally silent in-game, with the added bonus of stopping time. 4/5 :mad:

2. Cutscenes. In the middle of a Deus Ex game. Which at some crucial moments wrest control from the player and put an unguided Jensen's ineptitude on full display. 5/5 :mad:

3. Boss battles. The less said the better. 5/5 :mad:

3. The XP system. It is utterly stupid. I could elaborate, but I don't think I really need to. 3/5 :mad:

4. Character progression. Even Invisible War's was better than this. 2/5 :mad:


Obviously the people who liked playing the game weren't bothered too much by these, or hardly noticed them. For me, however, DX:HR was the biggest disappointment of the year, so its flaws stand out even more. On that note, here are a few more that aren't design issues, but added to my negative impression.

5. The replacement of three skills with one minigame. To those who found it tedious by the halfway mark, it kills replayability for hacker builds. At least Alpha Protocol had three separate minigames, and offered an option by which you could bypass them. 3/5 :mad:

6. The cover system. Yes, you can avoid it entirely, but as the game is designed around it, doing so puts you at a distinct disadvantage (especially during combat), making it a self-imposed challenge rather than an equally viable alternative. 3/5 :mad:

7. The mediocre writing. Judged on its own, I'd say that DX:HR's is adequate, though there are a couple of things it handles quite awkwardly. But the way I see it, they drew upon Deus Ex and Ghost in the Shell--and the writing in DX:HR is the best they could do with their sources. 5/5 :mad:

Papy on 29/11/2011 at 07:43

---

@Skinner's Pigeon : Some of your points were the reason I didn't buy Human Revolution until now. I am a hardcore player (as in : saving is cheating and games must be annoying in order for me to enjoy them), so anything which made the game looks like the regular mainstream dumbed down console game was a mistake for me.

But now that I'm playing the game, I found out most of these points were not important, taken out of context or plain false...

1) Takedowns : The takedowns animations were one of my big fear before I played the game, particularly after hearing all those "console tards" praising them for being "cool". Watching them on YouTube videos certainly made things worse. I was also afraid of the "I win" button effect. But now that I'm playing the game, I realize they do not take a lot of place, so I simply don't care. Also they are certainly not an "I win" button. Even with frontal time stopping takedowns, Human Revolution is as challenging as Deus Ex. I'd even say it's a bit more challenging. So from a theoretical point of view they are bad, but in practice they don't interfere with the gameplay.

2) Cutscenes : After the very beginning of the game (which I found atrocious), cutscenes becomes rare. I still found them a bit annoying, but not enough to really bother me. Again, in theory this is bad, in practice the effect is very minor on the gameplay. As I'm a very pragmatic kind of guy, I simply don't care.

3) Boss battles : I normally hate boss battles (that's one of the things I didn't like with BioShock or System Shock 2). But with HR, they seem to be similar to the ones of Deus Ex so I can't really complain.

4) The XP system : I agree the presentation is stupid, but it doesn't affect the gameplay too much for me. I still don't like the idea of having XP points for individual kills or for hacking, but even though I'm a perfectionist, the small amount I can lose here and there for using an easier solution is acceptable. In fact, I like the idea of being punished for choosing an easier solution (did I say I was a hardcore player?). So in the end, despite its stupid presentation, I think the XP system has nice qualities from a gameplay point of view.

5) Character progression : OK, here's one real flaw of Human Revolution compared to Deus Ex (but certainly not to Invisible War, which was a complete joke). No hard choices and too player controlled. I don't have this "kid who opens his Christmas gift" feeling with Human Revolution. Worse, most augmentations are not that interesting.

6) Hacking minigame : I generally hate minigames. For example the hacking minigame in System Shock was one of the thing I found to be painful with that game. BioShock was a bit better, but still a fail. On the other hand, the hacking minigame in Human Revolution is actually not that bad. Still a bit annoying, but being a bit annoying is a good thing. That's what give value to rewards. Another good point is that it can use limited resources, meaning it adds resources management.

7. The replacement of three skills with one minigame : With Deus Ex, the three skills were only superficial. From a gameplay point of view, those three skill didn't contribute to much. It was really a case of "if you chose skill A : go left; if you chose skill B : go right". Having three skills with Deus Ex was only shallow complexity.

8. The cover system : The cover system really is optional and the game is not designed around it. I know because I used it only once in the beginning of the game (before being augmented) and never used it again. And when I say never, I mean never. Would it make the game easier for me to use it? Certainly. Is it a self-imposed challenge? Absolutely. So? Playing at the "Deus Ex" difficulty is also a self-imposed challenge.

9. The writing : The writing is actually quite good for a video game. I wish the world would have more flavor (as in less pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo and more politics and personal stories), but Human Revolution is still way, way better than Invisible War or most other video games.

@Llama : As anyone who use "lol" more than once in a message, you're an idiot. Oh, and please could you at least play Deus Ex before comparing it with HR.

Skinner's pigeon on 29/11/2011 at 09:26

---

Oh dear. This doesn't bode well.


You don't mind them, I loathe them intensely. They're unskippable, repetitive, and often have Jensen teleporting behind enemies to incapacitate them with his sheer awesomeness. For me, they are a jarring interruption to the flow of my game, not least because of the in-game silence and time freeze.


You really don't mind a lumbering augmented brute emerging out of the same corridor you had left, then sneaking up on Jensen, who turns around and allows himself to be punched in the face? You had no problem with the fact that Jensen allows Zhao to slip away right under his nose twice (please compare meetings with Maggie Chow)? For a game that prides itself on offering players freedom of approach, DX:HR seemed awfully intent on dragging Jensen into cutscenes where his stupidity could be put on full display.


Surely you're aware that in Deus Ex all but one of the boss battles could be avoided? (Actually two, but the other one barely counts.)


This is going to require more detailed explanation. Deus Ex followed traditional RPG character progression, which means that your chosen build determines your playstyle. The either-or choice in the selection of augmentation reinforces this, and thus Denton can never be a master of all skills and abilities. Invisible War decided that the slow, incremental development of a skill system didn't fit the Deus Ex playstyle, which should focus on supporting various equally viable approaches to the completion of objectives, hence the use of augs alone to tailor your character. DX:HR abandons all of this in favour of unlockable character upgrades, a system that has more in common with Batman: Arkham Asylum than either Deus Ex predecessor. The character build no longer determines the playstyle; if anything, it's the other way around. A stealthy melee-based hacker will also become a combat specialist simply because the playstyle showers them with praxis points and they'll inevitably run out of augs that complements their chosen approach. Not to mention that some of the augs are just about useless. So yeah, Invisible War was better than this.


Are you being serious? We play games to be entertained. We work for rewards. It's a minigame; it should be fun and rewarding.


Uh huh. If I said that it was possible to complete Halo 2 and 3 without killing anyone but bosses (and, from what I've read, it is), does it follow that they were designed specifically to allow pacifist runs?


If that's your standard for writing in games, I can't argue. But compared to Bioshock 2 and Fallout: New Vegas, the writing is not very good. And please don't use the phrase 'good for a video game'--it implies that games can't do much better. I saw Ghost in the Shell about a week after I finished and uninstalled DX:HR, and it only made me rage harder that an 82 minute movie should examine the same themes with far greater depth than a 30 hour game.

Thirith on 29/11/2011 at 12:17

---

@Llama: Your criticism would be a lot easier to take if it wasn't wrapped in as much hyperbole and if you weren't as condescendingly dismissive of people who enjoyed the game.

While I enjoyed Human Revolution a lot (I have to say that I'm not one of the people for whom the original Deus Ex is the Holy Grail of gaming - to me several of the individual elements were flawed in ways that were unnecessary, e.g. boring hacking, awkward combat, stealth felt considerably less 'right' than in Thief, even with full stealth augmentation) there's one thing I really minded: the environments are repetitive and samey. The different locations all feel way too similar. Coherent art design is one thing, but I wish they'd given the locations a distinctly different look and feel.