Ostriig on 19/4/2011 at 14:10
Excellent news. On the one hand we get the options we wanted for a more immersive interface, and on the other we see that EM does consider taking some community feedback onboard.
Albert on 19/4/2011 at 20:52
I was watching the 2nd gameplay video, and so far, I think it'll be a tad less inventive a game. But it sort of looks like they're actually trying to recreate the experience of the first game, rather than throwing away those bits and going with the Invisible War style of game rehashing. With that said, it doesn't seem they've designed the interface like that at all. It's just about the same looking as in the 2nd game. But, maybe it'll play out better than we think?
And giving it a second look, I just hope they don't make it an annoying cutscene-cluttered game.
(Save for conversations. Deus Ex is known for it's conversations.)
New Horizon on 20/4/2011 at 11:53
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Excellent news. On the one hand we get the options we wanted for a more immersive interface, and on the other we see that EM does consider taking some community feedback onboard.
It was a rather begrudging change on their part. The feedback on the highlighting has been pretty much the same right across the net....'too much highlighting'. lol In the video they go on about how they're 'taking a risk' for us. Setting up a highlight option in the menu would take no more than half an hour, and then maybe an hour or two to test and make sure they didn't break anything else by accident. It's an option, not a risk.
A risk would have been going in and allowing users to choose first and third person exclusively, allowing players to choose no takedown animations or no switching between perspectives...unless they wanted to. That's the biggest problem I have with the game at the moment. It forces third person on the player every chance it gets...take downs, the cover system.
I might even be able to swallow the takedowns if they would put leaning in the game and allow me to avoid the annoying third person cover system.
Ostriig on 20/4/2011 at 13:13
Of course it sounded rather begrudging after they spent so much time pitching the thing as part of the artistic direction, marketing isn't going to just let them turn around and say "whoops, our bad". Not to mention the risk of creating a precedent in the public opinion. And of course they try to spin it as a grand concession to the fans, "taking a risk" and all that, because it's a stab at getting some good publicity despite it actually being the result of probably one programmer losing one lunch break. But at the end of the day, I don't care
how they sell it, I just care about
what they sell, and the fact that they did take community feedback onboard for this thing and gave us what we wanted is a good thing in my book.
Quote Posted by New Horizon
A risk would have been going in and allowing users to choose first and third person exclusively, allowing players to choose no takedown animations or no switching between perspectives...unless they wanted to. That's the biggest problem I have with the game at the moment. It forces third person on the player every chance it gets...take downs, the cover system.
I might even be able to swallow the takedowns if they would put leaning in the game and allow me to avoid the annoying third person cover system.
Look, I understand where you're coming from about the enforced third person perspective, I hate it as much as anyone else here and I genuinely think it may well end up being the single biggest screwup this game makes. But it's not something that we could expect them to change this late in the development cycle, it's pretty much been made a central part of the way they designed the game, their vision for it, and it may well have fed into the way they designed their environments and AI interactions, and whatever else. The object highlighting is icing on the cake, if that, and easy to change, which is the reason why so many of us asked for it in the first place. But the way that the game weaves perspective into the gameplay is a bit of a different matter and I can't think of any AAA studio out there today that would readily take the risk of screwing with that so late into development, and even more so I think it's unrealistic to expect it of Eidos Montreal who have yet to even prove themselves commercially to their owners.
inselaffe on 20/4/2011 at 14:56
Wow that interview reeks of smugness, particularly the guy on the right. It's like he's trying to make out that it's all part of his ‘high art’ and that the great unwashed are compromising his vision.
Not particularly sure why they didn't include an option to have the highlight used only for the object you are currently able to interact with.
Still, at least they've done something. A bit of a token gesture though not exactly given gladly from the tone of the interview.
Still have to hope the choice element of the game shall be good even if it's been clear from the start that the stealth element won't be because they think that thief style shadow/sound based immersive first person stealth is crap.
So i think in many elements it will hopefully be good however it won't suite my play-style and the overall scenekid camp vibe from it is rather off-putting. Everything has to be overly showy and ‘cool’ as a means to justify its existence.
It is hard to describe the first game as subtle, but compared to this it is positively understated.
Koki on 20/4/2011 at 15:31
Quote Posted by mothra
there you go, we removed it although it was entirely gameplay - justified !!!! it showed how SMART YOU ARE giving you highlights on objects you NEVER EVER would have known that they can be interacted with: e.g.
DOORS - since CallOfDuty everybody knows that the game's protagonist cannot interact with doors, in our game you can and that's why we highlighted it
BOXES - see you can pick those up, guess you never thought of that
NPCs - well, if the big onscreen prompt for dialogue is not sufficient, only the highlight makes sure you know that you can talk to them
this augmented reality is really something, giving us helpful tools but then those stupid gamers want them removed and keep guessing thru the game if they really can pick up that ammo that lies everywhere in the city. but i guess if you design a tutorial level where you have a ladder next to a few boxes and you can NOT use the ladder and have to stack boxes you really need that highlighting.
Well. +1?
John P. on 20/4/2011 at 16:16
I'm actually starting to get a bit excited about the game now (someone help me!).
I think that their idea that the highlighting wouldn't hurt immersion because you are after all an augmented agent where all this info pops up 'on your eyes', could make sense, except that if it were real, augmentations that tell you through a graphical interface that you can actually open a door, or climb a ladder, or pick up a box, would be so intrusive and superfluous (not to say insulting) that you would turn it off minutes after having gotten the augmentation implants. That is to say; it would never have been made that way in the first place.
Yes, I'm aware it's a game, but I don't think it has to be so "gamey", and the augmentation-explanation was meant to show that it would be plausible in a future reality, which it wasn't, the way it was implemented. But now that's taken care of, so I'm already more positive. I'm aware Deus Ex also had object highlighting, but it was very subtle, and didn't highlight stuff twenty feet away from you, as it seems was the case here. In any case, it is possible to improve on Deus Ex in certain areas too (blasphemy!!).
Matthew on 20/4/2011 at 18:20
John P., I think you have to hand your badge back now.
Koki on 22/4/2011 at 06:12
Quote Posted by John P.
In any case, it
is possible to improve on Deus Ex in certain areas too (blasphemy!!).
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)And good riddance I say!
Bakerman on 24/4/2011 at 02:32
Quote Posted by John P.
Yes, I'm aware it's a
game, but I don't think it has to be so "gamey", and the augmentation-explanation was meant to show that it would be plausible in a future reality, which it wasn't, the way it was implemented.
Couldn't agree more. The objective markers somewhat make sense - they're an extension of GPS. But the object highlighting is just a bit inane.
Props to EM for budging on this - although I'm not willing to give them
that much credit, since it really should have been an option from the beginning. Then again, how many games these days give you meaningful options for stuff like that?
