*SPOILERS* Impressions at the end of it all *SPOILERS*

Jason Moyer on 10/10/2011 at 21:45

Quote Posted by Keeper Deven

I also went through all four endings, and why not? All you have to do to get the ending of your choice is to press a button. It’s the most superficial implementation of multiple endings in any game I’ve played.

I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread, but there are 12 endings.

june gloom on 10/10/2011 at 22:33

To be perfectly fair, most of them are permutations of the base four depending largely on how much of an asshole you were.

heywood on 11/10/2011 at 00:58

Quote Posted by Keeper Deven

I don’t know why I keep coming back. Stupidity, perhaps. Or masochism.

I didn’t hack every computer to play Uplink, and I didn’t put myself through the credits because I enjoy looking at pictures of complete strangers. So yeah, I got the conspiracy and I got that Reed joined Page to make little Dentons together. I also went through all four endings, and why not? All you have to do to get the ending of your choice is to press a button. It’s the most superficial implementation of multiple endings in any game I’ve played.

Yes, I think we all agree that the vending machine ending choice was lame.

Quote:

Now I probably didn’t articulate it well, but what I said about the Darrow thing was: the reveal is ridiculous. Ignore the info you get from the computers and recall the content of the TV broadcast from Panchaea. Now do you understand what I mean by doomsday device, remote base and mad scientist leader (and to me he’s a mad scientist anyway)?

No.

There was no doomsday device. I wouldn't pick on this point, but you're basically making stuff up to complain about. At least get the story straight before bitching about how it sucks.

Quote:

I don’t know which version you played, Dia, but I was absolutely undetectable if Jensen wallhugged something between him and an enemy. Conversely, if I wasn’t Velcroed to a chest-high wall, there was a good chance I’d be detected.

I'm pretty sure there's no difference in detectability, since I used a lot of 1st person cover (crouching behind things). You can do it either way, but I found it difficult to stop staring at the radar when using 1st person cover.

Quote Posted by Jason Moyer

Really? IIRC Darrow has a very specific set of responses that are required to beat him.

There has to be multiple sets unless there's a bug.

The first time, I didn't feel like reasoning with him and just wanted out of the conversation, so I didn't really try but ended up winning anyway. Then I found out how trivially easy the final battle was. So on my second game, I actually tried to lose the conversation a couple of times to see if it makes the end any harder (I know it's probably just the code but I wanted to try anyway). I thought I had a losing combination when all his responses back seemed dismissive or confrontational, but he still gave up. That's when I gave up.

Keeper Deven on 11/10/2011 at 02:07

Quote Posted by heywood

There was no doomsday device. I wouldn't pick on this point, but you're basically making stuff up to complain about. At least get the story straight before bitching about how it sucks.

Are you that hard of understanding? I know it's not a doomsday device. I understood the entire conspiracy plot. I did not like how it was presented via cinematic cutscene, which looked to me like a cheesy—oh, for fuck's sake, if you're going to be wilfully dense there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Keeper Deven on 11/10/2011 at 02:59

I'm going to try one last time.

[INDENT]TV shows live broadcast from ~~remote base of EVIL~~ Panchaea.

Mad/sad/angry cripple scientist shuffles onscreen.

‘Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Sarif here has asked me to show the world how human enhancement technology can change it. After careful deliberation, I've decided I must do exactly that.'

Ooh, ominous.

‘Forgive me.'

Scientist activates device. Device causes DOOM!

(Not included, which would make cheesy scene really complete: ‘MWAHAHAHAHA!')[/INDENT]

The cutscene may be viewed here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY9mI_Rm1Tw). If you still didn't get what I'm on about, you really are wilfully dense.

Edit:

Here's more on why that scene is completely stupid. At the end, Eliza tells Jensen that Darrow, Panchaea's lead dumbfuck, had recorded a full confession that would reveal everything to the world. So ... why didn't he broadcast that (which better fits the Deus Ex world of behind-the-scenes conspiracy) instead of causing worldwide chaos and suffering? Probably because it wouldn't make for a good cheesy cinematic cutscene.

No, I'll play along and try to rationalize this. It could be that Eliza would block or spin the transmission. If so, at the end, why would Eliza, who's under Illuminati control, bend over for Jensen rather than Darrow, an actual member of the Illuminati, and the one who should know the Hyron project like the back of his hand? Of course! It's because no one besides the player can possibly save the world, and so Eliza will only put out for Jensen's augmented protagonist cock.

Dia on 11/10/2011 at 04:46

Okaaayyyy; we get that you hated the game and why. That's your right and I respect it. Thing is, a lot of us liked/loved HR, so there you go. Some people are going to pick it apart to point out what they felt were its many failings while others will vehemently defend what they felt were its many high points. Different strokes & all that.

On the subject of losing the argument with Darrow: I won that argument twice, but just couldn't do it on the third try. I tried again immediately after that, and lost again! It kind of felt like once I'd lost the argument, then the game stacked the odds against me. I know how lame that sounds, but the same thing happened with Haas. It's as though if you lose an argument once, forget about trying to win it on any immediate subsequent attempts. This time through I haven't had any issues with arguments though.

Of course, after I lost the argument with Darrow the second time around I got exasperated and just shot the bastard in the head.

I much felt better after that.

:cheeky:

Keeper Deven on 11/10/2011 at 07:42

It was probably imprudent to post in a fan forum without gauging the community's reaction to the game (does it count as trolling if it wasn’t intentional?). But I was honestly taken aback by the enthusiastic response here. It looks like Bioshock’s greatest legacy was convincing people that they could never get anything better. Now DX:HR is not remotely as dumbed-down as so many other console games—but it just feels so uninspired, even perfunctory. It’s certainly lacking in any real philosophical examination of its theme; the closest we get to that is a monologue at the end. And it’s not like it can’t be done in an AAA project; if Chris Avellone could examine the implications of a balancing power in a Manichaean universe through fucking Star Wars, surely transhumanism would be a richer bounty for intelligent discussion. Heck, even System Shock 2 did more with its symbolic conflict between flesh and machine. DX:HR looks to me like yet another case of potential far exceeding the ambitions (and perhaps the abilities) of the developers. Instead, all I see is endless pandering to the MGS demographic. And … uh … I never asked for this.

Again, disclaimer: all of this is subjective; we’re not convincing each other; let’s leave it at that. My opinion has no bearing on your enjoyment of the game, and rightly so. Also, seeing as I’m part of a very small minority of dissenters, it’s very unlikely that my criticisms will in any way influence the next DX or DX clone, so you’ll probably get more of what you enjoyed. And I’ll probably have to play something else.

ilweran on 11/10/2011 at 13:18

Quote Posted by heywood

Yes, I think we all agree that the vending machine ending choice was lame.

It wasn't the best way for it to be done, but I've come round a bit since watching someone else play the Panchea level. At least you can end up missing out on being able choose two of the endings if you don't find Sarif or Taggart, and you're not given much help to find them - ie no big 'X' on the map. You have to pay attention and go look, something which apparently not everyone does.

If, as it seems, it was just an out of time, must publish NOW thing, I would have preferred one button for the suicide ending and just verbally instructing Eliza for the other three. Why do you need to press a button to tell her what to broadcast? You're there talking to her, just tell her your choice.

Keeper Deven on 11/10/2011 at 13:43

Well, it seems that my last post has proven horribly prescient. Cover-based gameplay has also insinuated itself into the Hitman series, along with distinct overtones of DX:HR and Assassin's Creed: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWf3dPKYf1E)

Marvellous. It's odd, though—I don't remember playing Hitman 2 and Hitman: Bloodmoney and thinking, ‘What these otherwise excellent stealth games really need is a mechanic whereby 47 can become intimately acquainted with a chest-high barrier.' It also looks like IOI are going for a more cinematic feel. That doesn't sound very much like the Hitman games I'm familiar with, but I'm sure it will nonetheless be received with fanfare around these parts. After all, this is what you liked, right?

DDL on 11/10/2011 at 15:12

*sigh*

Quote:

dethtoll was mean to me and now im all grouchy

:nono:

More seriously, it's quite possible to like a game without being wholly enamoured with every last aspect of it. If you actually read half of what people have posted here, you'd see that while the general vibe may be positive, it's not unreserved praise.

Most people here either find the cover system "annoying and unnecessary" or "tolerable but unnecessary", and it's pretty widely touted as one of the more jarring non-DX-like elements of HR. Takedowns being another. Bossfights a third.

The point is, that while it didn't do everything perfectly, it MADE A FUCKING EFFORT. The level of detail and choice and conversational depth and so on, while perhaps not quite living up to vanilla DX standards, is still a major step up from the increasingly ubiquitous "cover-based shooter". Sure, you CAN play it like a cover-based shooter (which in fact you couldn't in DX, so..hey, bonus playstyle!), but you don't have to. I don't think I had a single fight in the game (boss fights aside) that was in anyway a 'fair fight'. I knocked out basically everyone before they even knew I was there, from behind (and then stuffed them all into an airvent). Cover-based shooter this was not. And it sold well, so in an ideal world companies will see that you CAN make a more thinky gun-game in modern times and still turn a profit.

So..um..TL: DR version: fuck off. :)