Deus Ex was "overly complicated and deeply flawed"?

[Irate Iguana]

Originally Posted by ThePrecursor

I believe minigames, if made interesting and challenging, actually add to the immersion. They make you participate in the hacking or unlocking instead of doing it for you while you watch from the sideline.

Besides Pazaak I've never seen a minigame that was interesting and/or challenging after encountering it for the fourth time. Minigames always fall into the easy category or the frustrating category. Easy minigames are self explanatory. The frustrating category generally relies randomization to provide challenge. While it could be very easy the first time the time after that might be impossible. Both are boring.

Immersion doesn't really come into play for me when it comes to minigames. Generally you are talking about abstractions that have little to do with whatever that they are supposed to represent. Just give me the push of a button and playing the waiting game. Hoping that I timed the hacking, lockpicking, whatever, right so that the guard doesn't walk in while the animation plays interests me more than having to play memory for the 20th time.

[Jerion]

IMO, DX isn't overly complicated. It isn't complicated enough. It gives you the wonderful illusion of choice and character progression. But for all it's great player-side aspects, it actually offers just a shadow of what it promises. Mission progression is linear, though it does offer a fair amount of pleasant variation (considerably more than you get in most games). At the end of the day you're still playing by a very constrained set of rules and limits. On any given playthrough there are *at most* three, maybe four ways of getting from Start A to Objective B. It doesn't matter how you do it really because for all the little reactive aspects which make the world come alive, nothing you do has any massive impact on how the game is played.

Where DX fell flat was on the hand holding at the beginning. The training mission itself was too harsh- My cousin failed the initial "Blow up the bot with a LAM" exercise because he grabbed all the LAMs, and messed up horribly. At the end of it he had a bot walking around and no way to blow it up, both legs missing, and a destroyed medbot in the corner. This could have been avoided if he had been more patient but it also could have been solved if the stinkin' LAMs had replenished automatically. This from a guy who took to Borderlands and FO3 almost instantly. Everybody needs help understanding complexity and patience the first time, moreso than ever with the simplified wave of recent games.

Human Revolution is a bit of a disappointment to me for this. It shouldn't just be four paths of world progression, it should be sixteen. It should be Deus Ex^2. That's what I was hoping for ten years on. While I'll settle for something equivalent to the original as there's been hardly anything comparable in the intervening decade, I was hoping for more.

[/rambling train of thought]

[pringlepower]

Originally Posted by Mr. K

IMO, DX isn't overly complicated. It isn't complicated enough. It gives you the wonderful illusion of choice and character progression. But for all it's great player-side aspects, it actually offers just a shadow of what it promises. Mission progression is linear, though it does offer a fair amount of pleasant variation (considerably more than you get in most games). At the end of the day you're still playing by a very constrained set of rules and limits. On any given playthrough there are *at most* three, maybe four ways of getting from Start A to Objective B. It doesn't matter how you do it really because for all the little reactive aspects which make the world come alive, nothing you do has any massive impact on how the game is played.

Where DX fell flat was on the hand holding at the beginning. The training mission itself was too harsh- My cousin failed the initial "Blow up the bot with a LAM" exercise because he grabbed all the LAMs, and messed up horribly. At the end of it he had a bot walking around and no way to blow it up, both legs missing, and a destroyed medbot in the corner. This could have been avoided if he had been more patient but it also could have been solved if the stinkin' LAMs had replenished automatically. This from a guy who took to Borderlands and FO3 almost instantly. Everybody needs help understanding complexity and patience the first time, moreso than ever with the simplified wave of recent games.

Human Revolution is a bit of a disappointment to me for this. It shouldn't just be four paths of world progression, it should be sixteen. It should be Deus Ex^2. That's what I was hoping for ten years on. While I'll settle for something equivalent to the original as there's been hardly anything comparable in the intervening decade, I was hoping for more.

[/rambling train of thought]

The training level was harder than a lot of the actual levels, because it was *GASP* linear. You didn't have the time to level up and customize yourself before getting through against an enemy who resists bullets. I had to hide behind and drag around a box

[Fluffis]

Originally Posted by Mr. K

Where DX fell flat was on the hand holding at the beginning. The training mission itself was too harsh- My cousin failed the initial "Blow up the bot with a LAM" exercise because he grabbed all the LAMs, and messed up horribly. At the end of it he had a bot walking around and no way to blow it up, both legs missing, and a destroyed medbot in the corner. This could have been avoided if he had been more patient but it also could have been solved if the stinkin' LAMs had replenished automatically. This from a guy who took to Borderlands and FO3 almost instantly. Everybody needs help understanding complexity and patience the first time, moreso than ever with the simplified wave of recent games.

Again, this isn't something that is a flaw in DX. The gaming climate has just changed. People are more used to having their hands held the whole way (at least through training missions). If I remember correctly, I had no major problems getting through the training mission the first time.

I think it's great that DX is unforgiving at the start, because it's a harsh world that JC gets into. He has to survive by his wits, and that's what the training mission teaches. The way I see it, there's a reason for the harshness in the way it is handled. You're supposed to be a new agent, fresh out of Academy. You're supposed to know most of these things already and, more importantly, you're supposed to obey orders. In the training mission and at Liberty Island, you're not supposed to think - you're supposed to do as you're told. If you actually do follow orders exactly is up to you, but the orders themselves are supposed to be followed to the letter. If you follow the instructions in the training mission to the letter, it's hard to fail irreparably. If you do fail, however, some parts are very unforgiving, because that's the world of Deus Ex. It's "tough love", basically.

FO3 took it the other way, and that could have worked too... You are supposed to be, more or less, completely unprepared for what happens outside. You're thrust into events that you have absolutely no control over, in an environment where you have never been before. That should make the hand-holding at the beginning a valuable storytelling tool (which it undoubtedly is), more than a form of preparation. Unfortunately, IMO, FO3 took it one step too far. You actually had a couple of tastes of real combat before you exited Vault 101. This meant that you were already a bit battle-hardened before you were thrust into the unknown. That lessened the impact of the transition for me - in the bad way.

I understand that some people prefer the way that FO3 handled it, but it's just too much mollycoddling for me, in a game like that.

In certain games even I like a bit of hand-holding - to get me up to speed - but in a game of survival, I've always found the "tough love"-way more rewarding.

[Jerion]

Maybe "Fell Flat" isn't the right phrase...."Hasn't Aged Well" might be appropriate. The training mission was no challenge for me in 2000, but seeing my cousin fail so abysmally in 2010 made me wonder if my perspective is a bit skewed. If Human Revolution is going to even approach the same level of complexity as the first game, IMO it'll need to do a better job of initial handholding than the original. Ideally not to the same extent as FO3 or Borderlands, but there should be more of it. It should be made a little easier to understand from no experience. I'd prefer a separate Training mission, since that lets experienced players just get up and go.

[MaxxQ1]

Originally Posted by Fluffis

In certain games even I like a bit of hand-holding - to get me up to speed - but in a game of survival, I've always found the "tough love"-way more rewarding.

Not to mention, the sense of "achievement" you get when you finally do suvive.

[Pretentious Old Man.]

Originally Posted by maxxq1

not to mention, the sense of "achievement" you get when you finally do suvive.

bleep bloop ~~15g.

[Fluffis]

Originally Posted by Mr. K

Maybe "Fell Flat" isn't the right phrase...."Hasn't Aged Well" might be appropriate. The training mission was no challenge for me in 2000, but seeing my cousin fail so abysmally in 2010 made me wonder if my perspective is a bit skewed.

I don't think your perspective is skewed. It's just that we're, at the moment, caught in a rather nasty vicious circle. Games have to be simplified, because previous games have been simplified. Of course, some simplification has had to happen with the widening audience of computer and console games. It's not the exclusive domain of us nerds any more. The problem with that is that once you start simplifying games, you have to continue doing it. At least if you want to hold on to the "new" gamers - so the companies think...

It's something I dislike, but I can't see a way out of it; short of a major gaming industry overhaul. Something like that is not going to happen unless two or three major developers stick their necks out, and take a major risk. I think it's safe to say that that is not going to happen any time soon. The thing is: The "new" gamers are already hooked, just like the rest of us. They would adapt to the kind of games that DX represents. The only thing standing in the way is, ironically, the game companies themselves. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Mr. K

It should be made a little easier to understand from no experience.

Unfortunately, I think this is a must nowadays.

Originally Posted by Mr. K

I'd prefer a separate Training mission, since that lets experienced players just get up and go.

Yeah, that is always the best way to go, IMO. Also, it removes the need to do the damn thing over and over, whenever you start a new game. (Thank the gods for the "special" autosave in Oblivion and Fallout 3).

Originally Posted by MaxxQ1

Not to mention, the sense of "achievement" you get when you finally do suvive.

Nice one.

[super...]

Originally Posted by Mr. K

IMO,
Human Revolution is a bit of a disappointment to me for this. It shouldn't just be four paths of world progression, it should be sixteen. It should be Deus Ex^2. That's what I was hoping for ten years on. While I'll settle for something equivalent to the original as there's been hardly anything comparable in the intervening decade, I was hoping for more.

[/rambling train of thought]

you are a cruel man just how many games do you want these people to make.

or better yet tell me 16 interesting and appropriate ways for a government agent to handle the liberty island scenario.


also dont forget most problems in the original deus ex have a fifth solution, lam climbing FTW!

[JackShandy]

Again, this isn't something that is a flaw in DX. The gaming climate has just changed. People are more used to having their hands held the whole way (at least through training missions). If I remember correctly, I had no major problems getting through the training mission the first time.

This is the kind of attitude I hate, comes up whenever someone says DX was too complicated. "This player obviously just wasn't smart enough for the game. I did it easy, so THERE."

Games are meant to be designed so that each player experiences a minimum of frustration and the maximum of fun. Ideally, everyone who plays it should be able to complete it. That's what playtesting is for. Sure, ok, you're always going to have 3 year olds or grandma's who couldn't play it to save their life VS hardcore gamers, but that's what difficulty settings are for. If you have people - ANY amount of people- quitting because they couldn't get through the training mission, you've failed. And that was a really hard training mission.

I can relate from experience, from when I tried to get a friend of mine into this game. My cries of "It gets really good!" weren't enough to sustain him through that training mission. Managed to get him a few deaths through the stealth walkthrough before he started rebelling like a badly-spliced organ. "Ok, I'm sorry," he objects, "Who the hell am I? What am I actually meant to be doing? Is this relevant to the plot? Is there a reason I'm suffering through this when we could be doing something fun?"

This, you have to understand, is a guy who I managed to talk into passing the first few levels of "I Wanna Be The Guy"- the most frustrating game ever created.

It was a training mission, for gods sakes! Training! The player is meant to suck at this point! Hand-holding is justified!

There's this whole attitude DX fans have, like complication is always better and games should only be made for people who are already hardcore gamers. Everyone's a new player once, guys. Ideally, games should seem simple and be easy to pick up for a first-time player, but have ultra-complicated mechanics that you can delve into as you get better and better. Easy to learn, hard to master. Like TF2, for example. Or Chess, maybe.

[K^2]

No, games are designed for maximum fun to be experienced by target audience.

A die-hard sim fan will dismiss most modern flight games as absolute trash. While games like Microsoft Flight Simulator are nothing but frustration to the rest. If you try and make a game that's fun for both camps, you will fail. Miserably.

Deus Ex was not a game for everyone. Yes, there will be people who will find it too complex. That's not a game for them. They should leave it alone and go play a game they like. An attempt to please these people will only alienate the core fan base.

Edit: Where did people get the idea that a game should be fun for everyone, anyways? What an absurd notion.

[JackShandy]

Fair enough, but everyone seems to want DE3's target audience to be no-one but the all-important "Deus Ex fan" demographic. I don't think Eidos should be burned at the stake for shooting for a slightly bigger target audience here.

Maybe I'm living in a fantasy world, but I'm certain it's possible to make a game that has enough depth for hard-core sim fans and enough accessibility for new players. I'm sure of it.

[K^2]

Expanding audience is fine, but not at the expense of the existing fan base. If Eidos/Square wants to make a cyberpunk game for a completely new audience, they don't have to make it a Deus Ex. Mass Effect was a new IP, and it did very well, as well as attracted a lot of people who found Deus Ex to be too complex.

[Fluffis]

Originally Posted by JackShandy

This is the kind of attitude I hate, comes up whenever someone says DX was too complicated. "This player obviously just wasn't smart enough for the game. I did it easy, so THERE."

Way to ignore my whole point with that...

My point with it was that there is a different gaming culture now. People are used to games helping them along more. It has nothing to do with intelligence, and I never said it did!

[tartarus_sauce]

Maybe I'm living in a fantasy world, but I'm certain it's possible to make a game that has enough depth for hard-core sim fans and enough accessibility for new players. I'm sure of it.

Good luck trying to push that on these forums. I've been saying the same thing, but no one wants to hear it. People seem entirely too ready to indict this game without even having played it.

, you'd think Deus Ex was the Bible and Eidos just commissioned a rewrite by the author of the Twilight novels.

[Irate Iguana]

Originally Posted by tartarus_sauce

Good luck trying to push that on these forums. I've been saying the same thing, but no one wants to hear it. People seem entirely too ready to indict this game without even having played it.

You don't need to play the game in order to see that certain elements aren't for you. We've all played games before and we can make guesses based on that. Practical experience is not required. Information IS required. Even the people who are negative towards certain aspects of the game change their opinion based on the available information. For example, now that they revealed that there will be full lines of text in addition to the emote keywords I don't think you'll find anyone who'll have a problem with the dialog system.

A lot of the hostility towards the game doesn't come from the fact that they want to expand their target audience. It comes from the fact that they seem to have changed their target audience completely. Certain people feel that the game is no longer (at least in certain areas) aimed towards the DX fan, but more towards the casual console gamer. There are a few changes that are seemingly not to improve the game, but to make it more like every other game out there for the sake of this new target audience. You'll find that a lot of the rabid fans are perfectly willing to acknowledge faults in DX, positives in IW and ways that they could make HR a better DX title. They are perfectly willing to accept change for the better and to bring in a new audience. Where it rubs is that the made changes aren't viewed as being necessary for a better DX, but they are necessary to get that "all important" casual Halo fan. Despite claims to the contrary from the Devs there hasn't been any attempt to actually see what the "hardcore" crowd wants, yet there have been tons of attempts to see what the casual gamer wants.

[JackShandy]

Way to ignore my whole point with that...

My point with it was that there is a different gaming culture now. People are used to games helping them along more. It has nothing to do with intelligence, and I never said it did!

Sorry, fluffis. I assumed that you were using words like "Simplified" and "Casual audience" as synonyms for "Dumbed down" and "Idiots", the way a lot of people do. No offence meant.

[Blade_hunter]

There is just some people who have a different envision and definition about what means accessibility...

[Fluffis]

Originally Posted by JackShandy

Sorry, fluffis. I assumed that you were using words like "Simplified" and "Casual audience" as synonyms for "Dumbed down" and "Idiots", the way a lot of people do. No offence meant.

Yeah, I know. I may have been a bit too harsh there. It's becoming too easy to be antagonistic on this board. I didn't mean to lash out.

When I say something is "dumbed down" and call some people "idiots", I don't use euphemisms.

[K^2]

Originally Posted by Fluffis

My point with it was that there is a different gaming culture now. People are used to games helping them along more. It has nothing to do with intelligence, and I never said it did!

Back in the day, you had to know how interrupts worked to get sound working in a game. Now you just need to know that red wire goes into the red hole on TV and the console. (Actually, even that is gone now.)

It used to be that you had to be "this smart" to play games. Now, that restriction is gone. If you think that average intelligence of a gamer did not drop as a result, you are being extremely naive.

[WildcatPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Irate Iguana

A lot of the hostility towards the game doesn't come from the fact that they want to expand their target audience. It comes from the fact that they seem to have changed their target audience completely. Certain people feel that the game is no longer (at least in certain areas) aimed towards the DX fan, but more towards the casual console gamer. There are a few changes that are seemingly not to improve the game, but to make it more like every other game out there for the sake of this new target audience. You'll find that a lot of the rabid fans are perfectly willing to acknowledge faults in DX, positives in IW and ways that they could make HR a better DX title. They are perfectly willing to accept change for the better and to bring in a new audience. Where it rubs is that the made changes aren't viewed as being necessary for a better DX, but they are necessary to get that "all important" casual Halo fan. Despite claims to the contrary from the Devs there hasn't been any attempt to actually see what the "hardcore" crowd wants, yet there have been tons of attempts to see what the casual gamer wants.

This is very well said, Iguana.

I'm as hardcore of a DX fan as they come, and personally I'd LOVE for more people to be drawn into the Deus Ex universe. The game has a lot of credit among the gaming press and veterans of the industry, but the vast majority of video gamers out there have never heard of it. If they have, they certainly haven't played the original.

But I am tired of seeing the same stale FPS ideas rehashed and recycled just because studios think it's important for casual gamers to experience something "familiar." In DXHR we've already seen evidence of:

-Rainbow Six/Gears of War style cover system
-Batman: Arkham Asylum/Assassin's Creed style melee or "takedowns"
-Mass Effect style conversation wheel
-Halo/Call of Duty style regenerating health
-Halo style cutscenes

None of this feels like "Deus Ex." Why aren't the developers forging their own identity from this game? If they want to use the name of the franchise, why don't they try to identify what made the franchise unique from every other FPS out there? It wasn't just a matter of having multiple solutions to a challenge. There was a lot more that made Deus the game of the year for so many people.

And that's why some of us "hardcore" players are upset.

[Fluffis]

Originally Posted by K^2

Back in the day, you had to know how interrupts worked to get sound working in a game. Now you just need to know that red wire goes into the red hole on TV and the console. (Actually, even that is gone now.)

It used to be that you had to be "this smart" to play games. Now, that restriction is gone. If you think that average intelligence of a gamer did not drop as a result, you are being extremely naive.

Technical "know-how" and "intelligence" is not the same thing.

But of course, it has opened up for everyone to play. That means less intelligent, and more intelligent people.

[K^2]

No, it's not the same thing. With enough persistence, you could teach a monkey to fix computers. That's not the point. The point is that there is a strong correlation between technical knowledge and intelligence. If you take general population and filter out all the people who don't know how their computer works, average intelligence of the remainder will go up.

Hence, an average PC gamer of the early 90's was smarter than an average PC gamer today, and the later are still a bit smarter than average console gamer, though, the gap is closing.

[Fluffis]

Originally Posted by K^2

No, it's not the same thing. With enough persistence, you could teach a monkey to fix computers. That's not the point. The point is that there is a strong correlation between technical knowledge and intelligence. If you take general population and filter out all the people who don't know how their computer works, average intelligence of the remainder will go up.

Hence, an average PC gamer of the early 90's was smarter than an average PC gamer today, and the later are still a bit smarter than average console gamer, though, the gap is closing.

I'm thinking... this post may well turn this thread into the flamewar to end all flamewars...

[xsamitt]