Request: A compilation of common complaints people have with this game

[Rindill the Red]

Originally Posted by IOS

Its all too common for people here to view Deus Ex as "the pinnacle of gaming", and completely overlook its shortcomings/exaggerate its good points. Deus Ex was a good game, but a flawed game as well.

This kind of situation happens far too often. No wonder EM can't "please their fan-base". The fanbase wants HR to be similar to a magical flawless version of the original that never actually existed.

I dare you to find fault with Deus Ex... go right ahead.... I dare you...

Seriously, Deus Ex was a flawless game... I don't see how people can say otherwise?

[Rindill the Red]

Originally Posted by CoDEllite

The inventory management might be overly complicated, unwieldy for the average gamer. Like in this screenshot http://dxhr.nanoaugur.net/dx3-analysis4.jpg . But overall the game is starting to look very good.

This guy isn't real... does everyone else see this guy's posts? It's like meeting someone who believes in creationism... it's like... what? for real? just completely dumbfounded.

Stop trolling and get out of these forums... I know these aren't really your opinions, the way you write, what you say, where you show up.

No one, who holds the type of opinions you pretend to, would possibly, ever, spend his time on an internet forum.

Please, remove your mask and reveal yourself for who you really are... or must we really continue with this charade.

[Uzuki]

Inventory management can be completely tedious if it's as obnoxious as Diablo II's, where you can't even rotate items such as 2x3 square-size shields or crossbows. But not having to think about your inventory, because you can carry everything, is poor for a DX game.

In general, however, it's not a bad idea for the game to be easier learn than DX. If the game is made only for the "die hard fan," it will probably end up a financial loss or barely break even. That's not an acceptable outcome for the CEO's/boards of directors who want their easy money (I'm sure CEO's work hard, but so do migrant farm workers).

Compare Xenogears with Final Fantasy VII. I loved both, but Xenogears is the one that really stands out for its story. The gears were incredibly fun to use as well, providing some comparably satisfying end game compared to FFVII. But FVII was mainstream (already being a popular series), fully funded, easily understood (both games had translation issues, but I really mean that FF was easy to understand where the plot was headed, and why), and didn't have any of the controversial issues XG's story had. What I probably want more than anything in gaming is a Xenogears remake, with all the attention it deserves, but the chances of that are astronomically low (lower than Chu-Chu's intelligence). Also, Xenosaga is totally separate from 'Gears and suffered exactly the same problems, as well as many new ones of its own (and I love it almost as much for its story anyways). Yet the possibility of a FVII remake has been teased for years, and I think I can safely say "we all know" it would be a huge cash cow.

I've been thinking so hard about that I almost forgot this forum's about DX. But in any case, DX has already had it's own "Xenogears," but I think it was a little more successful (35 GotY's) in some ways. Also, just because IW was dumbed down but didn't cause DX to become a household name doesn't prove me wrong. DX:IW was just plain meh. The dumbing down was way worse than for DX:HR (uni-ammo) and the world felt alien (which DX:HR does not appear "alien" at all; it looks very realistic compared to IW's setting and made up slang). Also, the voice acting failed in much of DX:IW, and it looks, so far, way better in HR.

I think we should be hoping for DX:HR that is pleasing enough to the hardcore fans but one that also generates enough new players so that the developers keep making games like this. Quality over quantity only goes so far. I don't think we should expect to play the Air Force One of gaming, but we should at least get a first class experience.


On a total tangent, I was thinking about the quality of A.I. Wouldn't it really be great if the A.I. is so good that you can throw a small object (a wad of paper or something really discreet compared to a flying combat knife) into a corner to distract a guard, and the guard does absolutely nothing? In other words, the guard is suddenly extremely alert, but is smart enough to pretend he knows nothing. For that matter, I'd hope a lot of my enemies in Dx: HR are under cover in good old spy style such as a window washer or man walking a dog. I remember how scary it was seeing the guy in the Invisible War opening cinematic detonate that device, because he was some random guy who became a terrorist that brought down a city, but I never felt that fear the rest of the entire game--not even close. In fact I never even found out what that technology supposedly was.

[IOS]

All I've really seen is a bunch of ad hominem and strawman arguments that have countered my point about Deus Ex fans viewing the original in an unrealistic light. Can anybody actually counter my arguments in a competent manner. That would be great actually, because as of now, the Deus Ex 1 fanboys aren't exactly proving their intelligence :P

PS: The immersion argument is complete BS. If anybody actually is completely immersed in a game, then they need psychological help, and its no wonder they're still virgins.

[K^2]

It's called escapism, IOS, and if you don't get it, it can't be helped.

Let me guess, you're the kind of person who'd rather wait until they make the movie, right?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Ashpolt

...In other words, Deus Ex but with 10 years' worth of improvements to it. Except for the "flawless" part, I don't think that's asking too much: in fact, I think "Deus Ex with the broken bits fixed and running on today's technology" is the very least Eidos Montreal should aim for. The problem is that the changes Eidos Montreal have made - the ones people are complaining about, at least -are not fixing the problems of the original game. No-one's complaining that they're improving the AI or the animations, because they were problems that needed to be fixed. Similarly, if they introduced new features that actually added to the "immersive simulation" gameplay experience, no-one would be complaining. What people are complaining about are changes that detract from the gameplay, and make it more flashy and "cinematic" at the expense of immersion and player agency.

Don't make the fallacy of assuming "the fans are not pleased" and "the fans can't be pleased" are one and the same thing. A lot of us have been letting EM know for over 2 years how they could please us, and it's their decision not to pay attention to that.

[EDIT] As for the inventory management conversation: Seriously, CODEllite, I don't think this is the game for you. I don't mean this as an insult, I just think that if you shell out your money on release day, you're not going to get the game you want. Ironically, neither am I: EM are aiming straight down the middle, to please no-one.

Agree with all this. Actually I was really optimistic after hearing first info about game 2 years back. I even didn't bother to sign up in this forum because I thought game is shaping OK. Yes, we already new about regenerating health but that didn't bothered me if they leave every other thing as it is in the first game. Also we new there will be third person switch but if i remember correctly EM said that it will be completely optional and players will be able to choose to use it or not. At least it wasn't said that third person switching will be actually all the time when you will try to take cover, make melee takedown etc. Well, I signed up to these forums only this year when i thought EM isn't actually hearing us and most likely they think we are minority here who think that all those changes are not the best for series. Actually there is much more people who don 't like all this but they just don 't care to come here and repeat all this bull over and over again because we who already did that haven't changed almost anything (at least what we have seen so far).
Also, as Ashpolt said, I can't understand why they didn't use already established formula from the first game and just upgrade/fix and add some new features. Why there is such need to steer the series away from it. Was really the first game so broken that it needed all those changes? Are gamers really so dumb and impatient that you think that he needs to stay always on the course and don 't want to actually explore environment and search for not so obviously shown problem solutions/paths? Do we really need flashy action and can't gamer really connect with protagonist if he won't see how cool he is with all those augments? After all they (EM) do to the series I think they think so and actually I think the whole industry think so low about gamers. Actually i think that we can say that about the whole entertainment industry.

Also what i wanted to say to this topic, my common complaint is that there always someone thinks that he is smarter than everyone else and now he will give us the only truth and will change our minds by compiling every complaint and giving his only opinion. Unless you are from EM I don 't care about explanation and i doubt your response to those complains is really needed here. There is already too many topics about all this were you could say what you wanted to say about all this.

[cartridge]

Originally Posted by IOS

All I've really seen is a bunch of ad hominem and strawman arguments that have countered my point about Deus Ex fans viewing the original in an unrealistic light. Can anybody actually counter my arguments in a competent manner. That would be great actually, because as of now, the Deus Ex 1 fanboys aren't exactly proving their intelligence :P

PS: The immersion argument is complete BS. If anybody actually is completely immersed in a game, then they need psychological help, and its no wonder they're still virgins.

We all have our own opinions about DX1. What we liked, didn't like. Some are just concerned that much of what they did like, is not in Human Revolution. That very well may not be the case. From what I have seen, much of what made DX1 the game that it is will be present in HR, in one form or another. But we also need to remember that this is a new game. And 10 years later. Of course it's not going to clone every aspect of DX1's art style and gameplay. That would be unreasonable, and honestly I would lose any respect I had for EM if they did. This is their game as much is it is ours. Their vision. I say we give them a chance to finish what they started before assuming the worst.

And don't pull the virgin card, that's so lame. After all, it takes one to know one. Right? Lol.

[mentalkase]

A good game can be as immersive as a movie or book, if not moreso, not only are you being drawn into the fiction by what you're seeing, but you get to participate and have control over that fiction. I think it's almost a shame that games aren't called 'interactive entertainment' or something. It's because they're called 'games' that they're constantly underestimated and undervalued and not looked at for what they could be.

[K^2]

mentalkase, all games are interactive entertainment, but not all interactive entertainment is games. Many developers focus too much on entertainment and leave out the game part. For some projects it's fine. You just need to decide in advance what you are trying to do.

Case in point, Deus Ex was as much a solid game as it was an interactive form of story-telling. It pulled off both aspects fairly well. Some parts better than others, of course. With HR, they seem to focus too much on the experience part, and that makes me worried that they'll forget about the game part.

[mentalkase]

Originally Posted by K^2

mentalkase, all games are interactive entertainment, but not all interactive entertainment is games. Many developers focus too much on entertainment and leave out the game part. For some projects it's fine. You just need to decide in advance what you are trying to do.

Case in point, Deus Ex was as much a solid game as it was an interactive form of story-telling. It pulled off both aspects fairly well. Some parts better than others, of course. With HR, they seem to focus too much on the experience part, and that makes me worried that they'll forget about the game part.

I'm not sure I understand what you think the difference is. The 'interactive' IS the 'game' part. Interactive defines what computer games are, as opposed to other forms of entertainment, just how interactive they are differs with each one though. DX was highly interactive, it was ALL about the various ways you could interact with an area.

All i'm getting at is that the word game is unfortunately often associated with childhood, and you might get more games aimed at intelligent adults if people thought of them as interactive entertainment. They're already as mainstream as other forms of entertainment it's just taking a while for certain people to catch on to that. In the meantime you still get the whole 'virgin' thing .. which .. is crap.

[Dead-Eye]

Deus Ex had lots of problems. Just watch someone new try and beat the first level.

However to respond to the OP's original question, I think it's appropriate to first point out what I see as flaws in the first Deus Ex:

-The flow of the game was off.
-Some game mechanics could be streamlined. (Passive Augs, Reactive Augs, and some of the TNM tweeks.)
-Some games mechanics were weird. (Shouldn't armor ware out if it's taking damage? Is the air attacking it?)
-Demolitions was a useless skill as far as I could tell.
-The AI was rather dumb.
-The physics engine is too old by my modern standards.
-The render engine could not draw far away objects vary well.

That's about it. But then along comes Invisible War, the title that sank Ion Storm (Austen) and sent Warren over to the Mouse. A financial failure compared to it's expected sales. Now I could tell you, all day long, everything I hate about Invisable War. I was 12 years old and a Deus Ex fanboy. But instead I'll just point out the ones that relate to Human Revaluation:

-The inventory system was simple, unrealistic, and hard to manage.
-There was no locational damage for head shots.
-The Levels were too small.
-Universal ammo/running out of ammo.
-The augmentation system had been "Streamlined" into only allowing 6 augmentations and some augmentations used to be skills.
-They removed skills, completely.
-The protagonist was completely uncool.

All of these things that I have listed thus far are things Invisible War got wrong, but they are also things that I see Human Revaluation doing right by. So pat your self on the back EM, keep this stuff up. Still there are things that Invisible War got wrong that I see Human Revaluation copying:

-The grounded in reality art direction from the original is overshadowed by the "just to be cool" art direction of a made up future.
-They removed lock picks and the lock picking mechanic. (This is even worse in HR because it's suppose to be a prequel.)
-They removed locational damage, and no longer penalized players for getting injured.
-They removed lean keys for the PC version.
-And finally they both removed one or more features from the original game completely. (In HR I'm talking about Melee weapons. In IW I'm talking about a lot of things.)

That's it. Those are the major things I can say for sure, right now, that are really bothering me about Human Revaluation as a sequel. As an extension of that I could say I don't like takedowns and the cover system, but you see, in reality, I don't care about them at all, I just would rather do things the way I had done in the original. I.E. using lean keys and melee weapons, but Human Revaluation doesn't support that and thus it doesn't support me. You get it now?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

Deus Ex had lots of problems. Just watch someone new try and beat the first level.

emm, don 't judge the game by today's standards. Most of those problems were not a problems 10 years ago. Of course that AI won't work now, those physics can't be good now etc. Overall, i don 't see almost any problem if i play that game 10 years ago. it worked as it should have worked and actually i loved all the weirdness sometimes AI manage to do or how sometimes physics worked etc. I love all those things even now but i understand that someone new will see it as a bad thing (especially if the gamer have never experienced how games worked 10 years ago).
that's why i made questions above asking why not just to fix/upgrade the known formula and add some new things. I don 't see the need to change so drastically and steer the series away from all those established elements.

[K^2]

Originally Posted by mentalkase

I'm not sure I understand what you think the difference is. The 'interactive' IS the 'game' part. Interactive defines what computer games are, as opposed to other forms of entertainment, just how interactive they are differs with each one though. DX was highly interactive, it was ALL about the various ways you could interact with an area.

A menu on your DVD player is interactive, but it is not a game.

A game, in general, is a state machine with a set of rules and a set of end-game states with varying utility. Typically, there exists a sub-set of end-game states with negative utility. Id est, you can lose the game.

Most modern video games fall into the category of zero-sum adversarial games. In these games a player plays against an opponent. The utility of the player's end game state is negative of that of the opponent. Opponent could be another player or an agent.

For example, Deus Ex was a zero-sum game played against an agent. No specific numerical utility has been assigned to end-game states, but negative and positive utility states are clearly defined. Any end-game state with JC Denton character dead had negative utility. Positive, and presumably equal utility was assigned to the game's 3 endings.

In a more general sense, games are far more complex, and game theory is a distinct branch of mathematics with huge impact in the field of economics and finance, and subsequently with huge amounts of money being invested into further study. These aren't child games.

The knowledge acquired from these studies, however, is easily transferable to overall video game design, and intelligent agent design specifically.

[Brock]

Jesus K^2, my head start to hurt after reading all this but yeah, you are right.

[Dead-Eye]

Originally Posted by Brock

emm, don 't judge the game by today's standards. Most of those problems were not a problems 10 years ago. Of course that AI won't work now, those physics can't be good now etc. Overall, i don 't see almost any problem if i play that game 10 years ago. it worked as it should have worked and actually i loved all the weirdness sometimes AI manage to do or how sometimes physics worked etc. I love all those things even now but i understand that someone new will see it as a bad thing (especially if the gamer have never experienced how games worked 10 years ago).
that's why i made questions above asking why not just to fix/upgrade the known formula and add some new things. I don 't see the need to change so drastically and steer the series away from all those established elements.

What I'm talking about is probably Deus Ex' biggest flaw that I know of. I tried to play Deus Ex quit a few times when I got it. It came with a graphics card I had. But when I first played it, I would play it for a little while, then I would die and give up. The problem was that comprehending the game mechanics and beating the first map is probably the hardest part in Deus Ex. They don't ease you into the game mechanics with some starter missions that let you get a feeling for how things work. Instead, they throw you to the wolves and tell you to go wolf hunting with a pistol and an electric prod. You might try to sneak but you have no idea how retarded the A.I. is and you'll usually end up overestimating their line of sight. You might try and gun it but with your horrid aiming a lot of shots are going miss and you'll run out of ammo before you even get one of them.

It was only after 2 years and no internet connection for a week that I tried Deus Ex and actually got up to the airfield mission, which is usually the point where people start getting hooked.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Dead-Eye

What I'm talking about is probably Deus Ex' biggest flaw that I know of. I tried to play Deus Ex quit a few times when I got it. It came with a graphics card I had. But when I first played it, I would play it for a little while, then I would die and give up. The problem was that comprehending the game mechanics and beating the first map is probably the hardest part in Deus Ex. They don't ease you into the game mechanics with some starter missions that let you get a feeling for how things work. Instead, they throw you to the wolves and tell you to go wolf hunting with a pistol and an electric prod. You might try to sneak but you have no idea how retarded the A.I. is and you'll usually end up overestimating their line of sight. You might try and gun it but with your horrid aiming a lot of shots are going miss and you'll run out of ammo before you even get one of them.

It was only after 2 years and no internet connection for a week that I tried Deus Ex and actually got up to the airfield mission, which is usually the point where people start getting hooked.

Really? If i remember correctly when you start a game for the first time after install it always asks you are you sure you don 't want to play training part first before you start the game. I bet everyone thinks that he is too good for training that he skips it but actually there you have to see what difference you have with non upgraded weapons and upgraded weapons (or upgrading skill to use that) and how accurate you are, it tells you all the elements how to avoid enemies and how you need to improvise using items in the world to stay undetected etc. It even tells you how to use almost every different type of item (lockpicks/multitools/ keyring, grenades (throwing, disarming/arming on the walls), pistols (reloading), rifles (using scope), keypads, picking object, destroying objects, using keypads, datacubes etc., sneaking around enemies (line of sight, shadows etc.), describes the most common enemies (2 type of robots, nsf operatives - all of those are the common enemies for the first levels). If I remember, it almost says everything you can do in the first 2-3 missions and after that imo you are really prepared and can see how you can do some more things). If you think that after training you are thrown to the wolves than most likely that game wasn't really for you All i can say, maybe next time don 't skip the obvious training mission if game tells you to try it first.

[K^2]

Yes, but even after the training, Liberty Island feels a bit like being dropped off at the deep end after performing a few exercises on the ground. Personally, I liked that aspect of it, but a lot of people panic.

[mentalkase]

Originally Posted by K^2

A menu on your DVD player is interactive, but it is not a game.

A game, in general, is a state machine with a set of rules and a set of end-game states with varying utility. Typically, there exists a sub-set of end-game states with negative utility. Id est, you can lose the game.

Most modern video games fall into the category of zero-sum adversarial games. In these games a player plays against an opponent. The utility of the player's end game state is negative of that of the opponent. Opponent could be another player or an agent.

For example, Deus Ex was a zero-sum game played against an agent. No specific numerical utility has been assigned to end-game states, but negative and positive utility states are clearly defined. Any end-game state with JC Denton character dead had negative utility. Positive, and presumably equal utility was assigned to the game's 3 endings.

In a more general sense, games are far more complex, and game theory is a distinct branch of mathematics with huge impact in the field of economics and finance, and subsequently with huge amounts of money being invested into further study. These aren't child games.

The knowledge acquired from these studies, however, is easily transferable to overall video game design, and intelligent agent design specifically.

Ok I guess I get that, sort've. Game theory is serious business. There's still a large number of people out there who see games as just being about teenagers shooting each other in darkened rooms though, and don't understand that games can be actually be quite a deep experience. Despite being mainstream they're still regarded as the poor cousin of books or movies by a lot of people.

[Fluffis]

Originally Posted by K^2

Yes, but even after the training, Liberty Island feels a bit like being dropped off at the deep end after performing a few exercises on the ground. Personally, I liked that aspect of it, but a lot of people panic.

I liked that aspect of it too. It really made me feel that JC was fresh out of the academy, which he was, and that the world around him was a harsh place.

[Ashpolt]

Originally Posted by IOS

All I've really seen is a bunch of ad hominem[...]

Originally Posted by IOS

Deus Ex 1 fanboys aren't exactly proving their intelligence :P

PS: The immersion argument is complete BS. If anybody actually is completely immersed in a game, then they need psychological help, and its no wonder they're still virgins.

Yeah.

I'm apparently not allowed to suggest that you might be a troll any more, so I will simply end my post here.

[K^2]

Originally Posted by mentalkase

There's still a large number of people out there who see games as just being about teenagers shooting each other in darkened rooms though, and don't understand that games can be actually be quite a deep experience. Despite being mainstream they're still regarded as the poor cousin of books or movies by a lot of people.

And I get that. But I feel that there is sufficient support for games-are-art movement now. Lets try to get some people back on the games-are-games side of things.

The way I see modern games is like someone giving you a beautiful chess piece set, and then locking you in a room with no board. Why can't we have both?

Yes, EM is creating beautiful environments. Yes, they want everyone to experience them, even the people who have to ride the short B-EE to the missions. Back in the 8-bit days, many games had levels that only a few people would ever see. And developers would put time into these levels because they know that for these few it's going to make the whole experience worth it. But back then it didn't take 100 people two years to make a game. With the amount of resources being spent on games these days, it makes no sense to make a level that very tiny fraction of players will see. So everyone should be able to complete the game so long as they keep playing. But there are ways to achieve that without compromising the gameplay.

I just purchased Dirt 2 on Steam, because it was a great sale. If you just start up the game and jump into a race, you get a 3rd person view of the right car for the kind of race that you are in, with ability to reset the car on the track and even to rewind to retry the segment. But spend a few minutes in the settings, and you are riding a car that you personally tune to the track with transmission of your choice from first person view and with full accountability for damage and with realistic call signals from your co-pilot. I like racing games, and I'm pretty good at them, but this one is making me spit and curse in frustration, because I have to ride the track over and over to learn it well enough to just be competitive. And the damn dirt on the windshield makes it near impossible to see what I'm doing.

And you know what? I'm enjoying every moment of it. If they were to force me into the default 3rd person view with all the default easy settings for arcade gameplay, I'd probably loose interest already. Now I'm going to go back and play it until I get through all of the races.

Back to HR. We see 3rd person stealth, we see regenerating health, we see regenerating bionic energy, we see a number of other handicap features you get from the start. These are there to prevent people from getting stuck. To make sure that they don't have to go back to a much earlier saved game because they did something stupid. Devs admitted as much. My question is why these training wheels have to be there for everyone? Why can't I go and choose to stick with 1st person? Why can't I choose to stick with finite amount of health and bio energy? All these things would be possible to keep, but EM goes ahead to focus on getting everyone through the experience, and leaving the gameplay in the dust. That's not the right way to make any game. It sure as hell is the wrong way to make a Deus Ex sequel.

[miraclecure_]

not everyone can afford a $5000 gaming rig and people do have lives so the game must be accessible

[K^2]

Originally Posted by miraclecure_

not everyone can afford a $5000 gaming rig and people do have lives so the game must be accessible

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

[Brock]

Originally Posted by miraclecure_

not everyone can afford a $5000 gaming rig and people do have lives so the game must be accessible

emm what that has to do with giving the option to choose how you want to play the game - with or without any help? Or you just trolling here?

[Fluffis]

Originally Posted by miraclecure_

not everyone can afford a $5000 gaming rig and people do have lives so the game must be accessible

$5000??? You're joking, right?
My rig cost about $1000 (around 7000 SEK), and there are precious few games I can't play. I may not have all the bells and whistles, but I also have no real slowdowns either.