Deus EX: HR - what am I missing?

[Vicious]

I put off playing this until recently due to being busy in college, carefully reading reviews and people's opinions so as to avoid spoilers. When I played the game, I couldn't find any of the things in the game that people were lauding and raving about.

Of all the critically and commercially successful games that were released this year and that I just didn't get, Deus Ex has to be the one I seem to be most divorced from about every single other gamer out there.

I didn't like the story - it was poor, both in scope, delivery and in just being an interesting story.

I didn't like the stealth - every time I was presented with a door/room with enemies behind it, I knew I could look to my left and find a vent if I wanted to go the obligatory stealth route. The important word being obligatory, the levels were obviously designed first with some poor schmuck being tasked to go and edit them all to add vents in afterwards so people could play the game completely differently by using stealth.

I didn't like the levels - they were lacking in scope, uninteresting and fairly bland over all - even Antarctica.

I didn't like the characters - it felt like they weren't given enough dialogue and scope to really come across as real characters, rather than caricatures. There was potential in both Jensen and especially Darrow(even though both were tropes) but it was never fleshed out.

I didn't like the combat - the guns just didn't *feel* right(this might sound silly, but I grew up playing Quake, CS, DoD, NS, Battlefield etc etc) and the game felt like it was more of an inventory management game than an FPS. Oh look, I'm head security for a gigantic corporation and I'm about to go on an important mission - I can get some ammo right? Not a lot, just a bit. No? Oh, ok I guess I'll just have to watch every single bullet on every single fucking level instead to try conserve some.

To be honest, I didn't really like ANYTHING in HR and found nothing really redeemable in it. It might sound silly that I completed it nonetheless, but I'm a completionist when it comes to games/movies/books so I kinda had to!

Does anyone else, at all, feel the same way? Because I'm honestly starting to feel like I'm too cynical and critical to enjoy games anymore, what with not particularly liking both Skyrim and HR this year.

[DigitalSignalX]

The bad: Boss Battles and 3 big pick your ending buttons. Everything else is awesome. About the guns, they are like real guns. You die quick when you get shot, so do the baddies with exceptions in first sentence. My feeling is they are paying homage to the first game with them, in that they are not supposed to be the shoot to win mechanic of every other FPS. Stealth, tactics backstabbing is the primary focus along with conservation of inventory and making choices about what to use. Sort of like a ghost recon game: if you go in guns blazing it will be an epic fail 95% of the time.
I think the key here, and sort of the same with skyrim, is that they are building on their predecessors. Coming into the series cold may not give you the best impression of what's expected of you. Sort of like people who complete Skyrim in 30-40 hours. I've never finished the first Deus Ex, but after reading a metric ton of articles, comments, and comparisons about it - I think I had a fairly good idea of how well DX:HR lived up to it's predecessor.

[Keep]

I haven't played it yet so I can't say, but this:


I didn't like the stealth - every time I was presented with a door/room with enemies behind it, I knew I could look to my left and find a vent if I wanted to go the obligatory stealth route. The important word being obligatory, the levels were obviously designed first with some poor schmuck being tasked to go and edit them all to add vents in afterwards so people could play the game completely differently by using stealth.

Is something I have been worrying about. I don't know how Deus Ex made so much of its option-making seem organic (and maybe it's only innocence on the part of my younger self that it seemed that way) but damn. Is it really forced in its level design like that?

[Zetetic]

There's a certainly a noticeable extent to which the levels feel designed around the game. The original wasn't free of this, but I don't think it felt so bad - I'm very careful phrase that to include the likelihood that a greater degree of forgiveness on my part was present.

[Bobtree]

I agree overall. I didn't hate playing DXHR, but it's a mostly forgettable game that nobody will care about in a year or so. The mechanics were ok, but design was often poor, and the plot goes right in the trash (with very some heavy handed writing too).

I still can't believe they mimicked so much of Metal Gear Solid in the stealth play and then outsourced the boss fights. WTF.

My favorite thing was that they actually DO kill the hostages if you delay starting the first mission. The game fails to live up to this though, as nothing else in the story is really important at all. There's no real reason to follow a play style, and specialization is pointless when you can do almost EVERYTHING anyway and unlock all the useful augs, making it way too easy. You're basically a walking arsenal with all the resources you can end up with.

A game all about choice needs more consequences.

[Bobtree]

I haven't played it yet so I can't say, but this:

...

Is something I have been worrying about. I don't know how Deus Ex made so much of its option-making seem organic (and maybe it's only innocence on the part of my younger self that it seemed that way) but damn. Is it really forced in its level design like that?

It's worse actually. In the original Deus Ex you had to make real tradeoffs. In DXHR the optimal way to play is to stealth KO and/or kill all the enemies in an area, AND hack everything, AND crawl through the vents (exploration XP bonus), AND collect everything, and so on. It's exactly as imersive and tense and exciting as that all sounds too. Jensen would be a great professional cleaner though.

[SirKicksalot]

It's so repetitive! When I reached Shanghai the second time and it started showering me with side quests, I abandoned it. I was too tired of running through the same areas over and over again.

[Juan Carlo]

You're not the only one. I also think it's terribly overrated.

It's not a bad stealth FPS as far as they go, but it's really nothing revolutionary. I certainly don't think it does stealth as well as it could have (I mean it does stealth OK as far as video games go, but it doesn't do anything new in the genre. Just once, for example, I'd like to see a stealth game where people don't just sleep for hours after you knock them out).

Plus, the writing isn't as great as people claim. In fact, the actual nuts and bolts of the writing was actually pretty bad at times (or, OK writing for a video game, I guess, but not by any other standards--and it definitely doesn't compare to something like Witcher 2).

Plus the game world is pretty limited. Overall, I definitely don't think it's a bad game, but it's pretty mediocre. I think it's much more similar to "Invisible War" than the original Deus Ex.

[Flint]

Amazing, amazing experience. When I first finished the game, I got goosebumps and that amazing feeling that washes over you as you've just finished something amazing and your mind reflects on the journey walked. The boss fights, while a bit silly, are a minimally small flaw when compared to the glory of the rest of the game.

Beautiful game. Best of the year. Best thing I've played in the last few years.

[Vicious]

The bad: Boss Battles and 3 big pick your ending buttons. Everything else is awesome. About the guns, they are like real guns. You die quick when you get shot, so do the baddies with exceptions in first sentence.
That wasn't my problem with the guns, my problem was with the feel/feedback(and this is a huge issue I had with Bioshock too). Basically, there was none and the guns just weren't fun to use - all this being obviously subjective and heavily biased by the ludicrous amount of time I've spent playing FPS' elsewhere.


My feeling is they are paying homage to the first game with them, in that they are not supposed to be the shoot to win mechanic of every other FPS.
Deus Ex also had terrible gunplay, fortunately it had a more interesting story, far bigger and more interesting levels and better characters, plot and character building. In short, I forgave it for not being perfect - and it certainly wasn't.


Stealth, tactics backstabbing is the primary focus along with conservation of inventory and making choices about what to use. Sort of like a ghost recon game: if you go in guns blazing it will be an epic fail 95% of the time.
Inventory management and conservation of ammo is simply ludicrous in a game like this, again, IMO of course.


I think the key here, and sort of the same with skyrim, is that they are building on their predecessors. Coming into the series cold may not give you the best impression of what's expected of you. Sort of like people who complete Skyrim in 30-40 hours. I've never finished the first Deus Ex, but after reading a metric ton of articles, comments, and comparisons about it - I think I had a fairly good idea of how well DX:HR lived up to it's predecessor.
Loved Deus Ex, loved Morrowind, disliked Oblivion and have mixed feelings on Skyrim. Quite liked Nehrim, but I doubt anyone has heard of it.

To me, HR felt like a sequel to Deus Ex 2 - not Deus Ex. Similariy bland levels, bland story, same limited scope in pretty much everything.

[Voon]

Well, a bit of exploring in the levels a bit wouldn't hurt and usually, I'd avoid the patrols than just shoot them up or KO'd them and just do it when necessary. I thought I was trapped and can't find my way around the guards in the factory without getting myself killed or alerting them until I looked around and found an air vent. If I get bored of sneaking, there's nothing better than ambushing them from it or hacking a computer so bots can kill them for me instead and get away with it. I find enjoyment in that, which something most games released this year don't deliver. Way, way better than how IW did in terms of gameplay but still wasn't able to beat the original. You'll say it's bland in terms of story but, hell, this game's story I say is a whole lot better than the stories in most games that came out this year. Again, not as good as the original and well, for me, Alpha Protocol, but still good. Didn't I mention how gorgeous this game looks? Forget about the Parkinson's Disease grade animations for the people in this game, everything looks just stunning there, especially Hengsha.

[Xercies]

I think its a question of whether you believe your being manipulated that much. I always find with Deus Ex that it surprises me because I do things that I think the game wouldn't of expected me to do, but it does. And thats weird. So yes there is Ventilation shafts everywhere and clearly there is a design for the multiple ways in. But I always think its my choice to do them and that I think I'm outwitting the game by putting 3 crates on top of each other and jumping the fence link.

I love the game, the story is not just the writing, its also the world around you. It tells so much through the buildings, and the conversations with random passer byes and the little touches here and there of each character. The conversation game just works really perfectly, I always find myself pleased with myself if I win them. And the stealth just works really well.

[TooNu]

Perhaps it's just you, you may not be interested in these games anymore. Maybe you grew out of them or are disinterested in them for some reason. It's not uncommon to suddenly find you can't "get" a game/book/film especially if you are stressed/overworked/tired or plain grumpy.

That is, your emotional state of mind comes into this. I say all of this becuase DXHR and Skyrim have proven themselves the world over with the largest percentage of people playing them being amazed and truly glad that they played them. That's not to say you are wrong, because your opinion is your own but maybe take a step back and see if you actually wanted to play them in the first place.

[soldant]

I wanted to play DX:HR in the first place, because I was a fan of the original (I try to forget the 2nd one ever happened) and it looked like they were going in an awesome direction. When I played it I was interested for the most part and reasonably well entertained, but afterwards I just forgot about the game and I haven't gone back to it.

Deus Ex made different paths seem viable (though even then there was a bias towards stealth). HR clearly wants you to use stealth only, to the point where every building has a convenient vent network, with identical vent grilles! Taking other paths is at best expensive in terms of ammunition or health, or at worst absolutely suicidal. Not once did I really feel like I had any other option except to use stealth. By that I mean yes, I could have gone in and killed everyone, but it'd be a hell of a lot more difficult and give absolutely no benefit over being stealthy. The "choice" aspect was largely missing.

Plus the storyline wasn't particularly engaging now that I think back on it. Deus Ex's story wasn't exactly the greatest and was filled with its fair share of conspiracy nonsense and bad dialogue, but it was still reasonably compelling. I really can't remember much of HR.

[metalangel]

I still haven't finished it. I was just beginning to tire of wandering around Detroit when I left, but the maze of streets in Shanghai and all the wandering you have to do there just ground it right out of me.

I can't understand why, considering I should love such a detailed, near-future city.

[Kadayi]

@OP

You've presented a linear list of 'I didn't like' but there's not much in terms of actual meaningful content to your complaints. 'Bland, uninteresting, lacking in scope' doesn't actually convey much to the reader in terms of relate-able information when you're making statements devoid of context or comparison, by on large.

Rather than going with 'I don't like' a better approach to criticism is 'what worked for me, and what didn't' and the why behind those conclusions in detail rather than a generalized hate list. You're effectively neutering debate/discussion by being unspecific in the exactness of your issues. I can't convince you that the levels of DX aren't 'uninteresting' because you're not explaining why they are 'uninteresting' to you.

For instance from an environmental perspective I wasn't particularly sold on the Hive nightclub because it just didn't feel like a nightclub, let alone one of the most popular nightclubs in the City, given the lack of NPCs as well as the scale of the place Vs say the nightclub in Kane & Lynch which (repeat character models aside) sells the aesthetic of being in a sweaty nightclub, from the crowds, to the loud music and the low level of lighting.

Compare and contrast: -

DX:HR


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UplUXX-EF4k

Kane & Lynch: -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh9OGbU28eY

[Drake Sigar]

It's amazing how adulation dominates a game's opening and then months down the line, gamers are ripping it to shreds. (Not referring to the OP since he only picked it up recently). Were they drunk on the commercial hype and are only just now coming off it like a drug addict in withdrawal, are they following an instinctual desire to go against the majority, are these a completely different portion of gamers who didn't speak up before, or were they simply drowned out by the praise? Whatever the reason, it seems to take a while for a game to be judged fairly.

[Kadayi]

I don't know Drake. I think people were well aware of DX:HR shortcomings (the boss fights, the terrible animations, not so great ending) etc, however the overall experience made up for it. The pros outweighed the cons, so to speak. I think it's very easy to deconstruct DX:HR on a number of levels, however that's true for pretty much all games.

[archonsod]

Were they drunk on the commercial hype and are only just now coming off it like a drug addict in withdrawal, are they following an instinctual desire to go against the majority, are these a completely different portion of gamers who didn't speak up before, or were they simply drowned out by the praise? Whatever the reason, it seems to take a while for a game to be judged fairly.

Funny definition of fair. I suspect it's simply because the game goes on sale within a few months of launch, and thus is picked up by those who weren't interested enough to pay full price. It's why you get a lot more who dislike it, since apparently most of the gaming market can't quite grasp the concept of targeted marketing.

[Roufuss]

It's amazing how adulation dominates a game's opening and then months down the line, gamers are ripping it to shreds. (Not referring to the OP since he only picked it up recently). Were they drunk on the commercial hype and are only just now coming off it like a drug addict in withdrawal, are they following an instinctual desire to go against the majority, are these a completely different portion of gamers who didn't speak up before, or were they simply drowned out by the praise? Whatever the reason, it seems to take a while for a game to be judged fairly.

The people who, for the most part, pick a game up at launch are fans of the series, caught up in the hype or have been following the game closely for months, salivating at its release. When they finally get that game they've waited months / years for, they overlook any shortcomings, only heralding how awesome it is. Other people get caught up in it, buy it, and experience the same thing.

After a few months, the hype moves to something else, and the people who were sitting on the fence, are casually interested in the series or just don't buy into the hype pick it up (usually accompanying a sale) and look at under more of a microscope. Since the people who bought it at launch have moved on, all you see now are the voices of the people who didn't like it.

In about a year, it comes full circle as people replay it without the hype glasses and new people buy it for cheap during a sale (and thus, have no real attachment to the series) and you get some good dialogue about the game.

I'm not saying anyone who buys a game at a certain fits into this, but in a few months when Skyrim drops price we'll start to see threads like "Whats the big deal with this game?" and websites looking back at it and talking about "what went wrong."

To sum it up, I think what we see is a little bit of everything you mentioned. Review sites do this constantly -- Modern Warfare 3 gets 9's everywhere, only later to see those same websites talk about how Modern Warfare 3 was a disappointment and what the franchise needs to do to fix itself.

ETA: I got beaten to it because I'm too verbose =/

[Scumbag]

I didn't like...

Thats possibly just the basic problem. You just did not like it and gave valid reasons as to why you did not like it and people can praise it to high heaven or low hell, still wont make you enjoy it.
The world at large seemed to love Bioshock and F.E.A.R., I though the former was a bit naff and the latter total crap. They were not bad games persay I just did not like them, plus I stupidly watched the hype machine for both which possibly butchered them both once played.

That said DX:HR is a bit lopsided. I think its fantastic, just in a very rough manner.

[Kadayi]

I'm not saying anyone who buys a game at a certain fits into this, but in a few months when Skyrim drops price we'll start to see threads like "Whats the big deal with this game?" and websites looking back at it and talking about "what went wrong."

I don't know, what you've written pretty much reads that 'only unrepentant fanboys buy games new' from what I can make out. However I don't think that holds up to scrutiny Vs the reality of what people say about games at the time in discussion threads (beyond the sucks/rules variety). If ones going to accuse first adopters of some degree of confirmation bias then one has to equally apply it to the johnny come lately crowd, though in their case it's less 'best game ever' and more 'I'm glad I didn't pay full price for this PoS'.

[archonsod]

I don't know, what you've written pretty much reads that 'only unrepentant fanboys buy games new' from what I can make out.


No he didn't. He said the people most likely to buy it would be fans of the series, which is a perfectly valid assumption I think. Subjectivity aside, any franchise as old as Deus Ex is going to have "flaws" which fans will overlook, because it wouldn't be a Deus Ex game if it didn't have them. The vents are a good example - it's even lampshaded a couple of times in HR how ridiculous it is that hyper advanced security systems can be bypassed due to having conveniently human sized air conditioning systems for some reason, but a Deus Ex game which didn't involve crawling through the ventilation system wouldn't feel like a true Deus Ex game.
In fact it's applicable to the complaint in the OP - "every time I was presented with a door/room with enemies behind it, I knew I could look to my left and find a vent if I wanted to go the obligatory stealth route." - the same can be said for Deus Ex 1 and 2. It's probably a flaw for the more traditional FPS fan, but not for a Deus Ex fan since it's what we've come to expect. In fact not having those vents would likely trigger far more complaints.


If ones going to accuse first adopters of some degree of confirmation bias then one has to equally apply it to the johnny come lately crowd

That would only work if we assume people who bought the game in a sale were predisposed to dislike it, which isn't the case - if you dislike football then no matter how great a football match is likely to be, you're not likely to want to go. Generally they're people who are more 'on the fence' - they might like the genre in general but be unfamiliar with the franchise, or they may like the sound of the game but be unsure. Of course there's also a significant number of people who like the franchise to an extent, but wouldn't consider themselves fans (which is the other problem, taste exists on a spectrum rather than a simple like/dislike). Same is true of most things - I wouldn't classify myself as a Queen fan, wouldn't go out to buy one of their albums or pay to see them in concert, but at the same time I'm not going to complain if someone sticks one of their albums on, and I'd certainly prefer to be listening to them than say The Bee Gees.

[Kadayi]

No he didn't. He said the people most likely to buy it would be fans of the series, which is a perfectly valid assumption I think.

But that model of thinking takes no account of new IP.


That would only work if we assume people who bought the game in a sale were predisposed to dislike it

No. There might by myriad factors why someone doesn't buy a game at launch, but if the reason they don't buy it then is purely down to a belief that it's not worth full price (maybe even based off of review/preview coverage they've seen) then they are already making value judgement's about it and setting an expectation on some some level.

[Nalano]

I didn't like the story

I didn't like the ridiculous idea that everybody would be arguing over cybernetics all day, every day, or that anybody - let along a large swath of society - would willingly hobble themselves through invasive elective surgery only to be stuck with an addiction to drugs in a world without proper health insurance.


I didn't like the stealth

[...]I didn't like the levels

The level design really showed the workings underneath when you realize that a lot of the apartment buildings you wander through or past do not have ground floors, and indeed do not and cannot have main entrances based on how the neighborhood is laid out. Yet, the apartments are clearly occupied. Does everybody use the fire escape?


I didn't like the characters

The more I think of K-Dog, Bee-G and Double-T calling one another 'cholo' and 'esse' and rapping on about the 'po-po' the more I wonder if I was being trolled by the writers. I hoped they would eventually stop giggling like Beavis and Butthead, calm down and give me actual characters, and not these quasi-racist dingbats, but it never came to fruition.


I didn't like the combat

I went into the game knowing that the combat would be inferior to a proper FPS, but even the DXHR devs admit they dropped the ball when it came to the boss battles.

[Mistabashi]

Personally I think DX:HR was about as good a Deus Ex game as could be expected from a major AAA developer. That is to say there were plenty of things I could moan about, and it generally felt a little bit 'dumber' than the first game, but on the whole it was pretty good and they at least seemed to understand what it was that made the first game, even if their interpretation of that was a little simplistic at times. The last level was awful though...

[metalangel]

The more I think of K-Dog, Bee-G and Double-T calling one another 'cholo' and 'esse' and rapping on about the 'po-po' the more I wonder if I was being trolled by the writers. I hoped they would eventually stop giggling like Beavis and Butthead, calm down and give me actual characters, and not these quasi-racist dingbats, but it never came to fruition.

If I hadn't already met Letitia the bag lady I would have been astounded by the "ah so nip poing ching chong" populace of Hengsha.

[Nalano]

If I hadn't already met Letitia the bag lady I would have been astounded by the "ah so nip poing ching chong" populace of Hengsha.

Oh thank god I'm not the only one. I have to admit, I thought the lack of general grumbling about it was yet another indication that the PC gamer community was really behind the times in a lot of respects.

[Mistabashi]

If I hadn't already met Letitia the bag lady I would have been astounded by the "ah so nip poing ching chong" populace of Hengsha.

You sure they weren't actually speaking Chinese?

I didn't think the Chinese voicework was that bad, I think a lot of people just have chip on their shoulder about being racist so when they hear someone speaking English in a "funny voice" they automatically make a big deal about it in order to make it clear that they're definitely not racist.

Letitia was a bit weird, but I can't say it's "racist". It was just an easter-egg character based on a stereotype as far as I can tell.

[Nalano]

Letitia was a bit weird, but I can't say it's "racist". It was just an easter-egg character based on a stereotype as far as I can tell.

All the local hoods were gross caricatures.

[ado]

Yeah I was underwhelmed by Human Revolution as well. It felt like a "jack or all trades but master of none" kind of game. And it was so goddamn boxy and yellow...

[Mistabashi]

All the local hoods were gross caricatures.

I wouldn't say gross caricatures, they weren't exactly a great portrayal of diversity but I can't say it felt too jarring within the context of a game. That may say more about my expectations of game characters/voicework though.

Personally the only thing I remember sticking out was the guy who voiced one of the generic Detroit gang bangers was the same guy who did one of the un-convincing South African grunt voices in Far Cry 2, which made me do a double-take every time I heard it.

[metalangel]

You sure they weren't actually speaking Chinese?

I didn't think the Chinese voicework was that bad, I think a lot of people just have chip on their shoulder about being racist so when they hear someone speaking English in a "funny voice" they automatically make a big deal about it in order to make it clear that they're definitely not racist.

Letitia was a bit weird, but I can't say it's "racist". It was just an easter-egg character based on a stereotype as far as I can tell.

Letitia was mesmerisingly old fashioned. It was like being in a 1930s cartoon.

As for the residents of Hengsha, it was a similar case of pulling the corners of your eyes and saying "hey Guizi, whole city part of big Triad, lose much face to people owe us money, what say you go correct debt we pay big money".

[Nalano]

generic Detroit gang banger

That, I think, is key. To paraphrase what I myself said when the game came out, the way the characters are portrayed - the way they act - feels more like an amalgamation of some Montreal programmer's impression after a marathon of Wesley Snipes movies than a reflection of what future Detroit hoods would be.

[Vicious]

@OP

You've presented a linear list of 'I didn't like' but there's not much in terms of actual meaningful content to your complaints. 'Bland, uninteresting, lacking in scope' doesn't actually convey much to the reader in terms of relate-able information when you're making statements devoid of context or comparison, by on large.

Rather than going with 'I don't like' a better approach to criticism is 'what worked for me, and what didn't' and the why behind those conclusions in detail rather than a generalized hate list. You're effectively neutering debate/discussion by being unspecific in the exactness of your issues. I can't convince you that the levels of DX aren't 'uninteresting' because you're not explaining why they are 'uninteresting' to you.
I briefly considered deconstructing HR in to what worked and what didn't. However, from experience, I know that people who write vast monologues of intricate criticism of a game they didn't like get three reactions:
1) A crank
2) Regarded as an anti-fan
3) A loser(see #1 and #2)

So I offered my subjective opinion on the aspects of the game that stood out for me (I didn't like....) and then tried to give a bit more objective reasons without going into too much detail.


So, I'll try again with regard to stealth and story.

I didn't like the story. It didn't really know what it wanted to be or where it wanted to go and it tried over hard to offer profundities just for the sake of it. It was incoherently told, disjointed and never succeeded in forming a real narrative. They wanted to show a world where biomods were creating two classes of citizens, where fear and hysteria whipped up by politicians and people with an angle to push was a very real threat to 'progress' and the future. They failed utterly. Deus Ex presented us with a fleshed out dystopian story which while occasionally absurd was nevertheless compelling and still to this day is remembered by a great number of gamers as being something special. HR did not.
The characters, oh my the chracters. The voice acting was great (especially Sarif's) but unfortunately the characters were mere caricatures. There was no real depth to their motivations, no real emotion was conveyed. With a better story and better writing, Sarif, Taggart and Darrow could have been fantastic characters, with real emotions, real motivations and offering the player three viewpoints with which to view and play the game.

I didn't like the stealth. I loved Thief 1 and 2. Back when Thief 1 came out, I was only 13 and couldn't afford many games but used to borrow a friends PC Gamer demo disks. The demo for Thief 1 was the entire first level of the game(with a couple of small differences). I played the demo for well over thirty hours because in Thief, stealth and level design offered you almost innumerable ways to tackle each and every mission. To me, good stealth goes hand in hand with good level design and requires offering the player a multitude of ways to tackle each and every objective. It isn't having a linear path (look left for vent to bypass shooting) that takes all the skill and choices out of stealth by allowing you to bypass confrontation - which is what HR does. Stealth is tacked on because the levels are designed to be linear with only one way to pass through them, so to add 'stealth' gameplay that added a second equally as linear way to pass through them although this time you aren't seen.

Is that better?

To compare; I only recently played New Vegas despite being a huge Fallout 1/2 fan(3 was ok, I liked parts of it and disliked parts of it and overall enjoyed the ride despite not being blown away). Especially noteworthy, it's the first x360 game I've ever played on the xbox 360 that was also available for the PC. To be honest, I expected to dislike it but I loved it! If I chose to criticize the game, the list of criticisms would be far far longer than for HR but despite that, it was fantastic. I thought it was far superior to both Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

[Xercies]

stealth
and level design offered you almost innumerable ways to tackle each and every mission. To me, good stealth goes hand in hand with good level design and requires offering the player a multitude of ways to tackle each and every objective. It isn't having a linear path (look left for vent to bypass shooting)

You know I saw a few levels like this but it definitly wasn't everyone and maybe i missed it but it wasn't totally able to see it all. In fact stealth is pretty hard as well, i got caught loads of tiems and it is a game of itself really and quite challenging. If you have to, forget that the vents are even there.

[Stijn]

It's okay to not like things!

Really, people have different tastes, however much that may sound like a cliche. Stop playing the game and move on. No problems!

[Kadayi]

I briefly considered deconstructing HR in to what worked and what didn't. However, from experience, I know that people who write vast monologues of intricate criticism of a game they didn't like get three reactions:
1) A crank
2) Regarded as an anti-fan
3) A loser(see #1 and #2)

I think you’ll find people here are more appreciative of a thought out opinion than elsewhere tbh.


I didn't like the story. It didn't really know what it wanted to be or where it wanted to go and it tried over hard to offer profundities just for the sake of it. It was incoherently told, disjointed and never succeeded in forming a real narrative. They wanted to show a world where biomods were creating two classes of citizens, where fear and hysteria whipped up by politicians and people with an angle to push was a very real threat to 'progress' and the future. They failed utterly. Deus Ex presented us with a fleshed out dystopian story which while occasionally absurd was nevertheless compelling and still to this day is remembered by a great number of gamers as being something special. HR did not.

I think there’s big question marks over the storyline in DX:HR however I’d say that have more to do with the premise than the telling. I’m also not entirely sure that the actual plot of DX is as fondly remembered Vs the playability of DX as you seem to hold. Personally I recall the game ended in three choices, but in all honesty I couldn’t now tell you what each of them are. Also Aliens, Area 51, Majestic 12...it all seemed good at the time (X-files was still on), but it’s kind of risible now.

With respect to the Storyline of DX:HR I’m kind of with Nalano in many ways: -


I didn't like the ridiculous idea that everybody would be arguing over cybernetics all day, every day, or that anybody - let along a large swath of society - would willingly hobble themselves through invasive elective surgery only to be stuck with an addiction to drugs in a world without proper health insurance.

The writers hung the idea of the game around this notion of cybernetics dominating society, but they never really convince with the argument that so many people would willingly undertake the surgery, especially given that a lot of the cybernetics available were quite crude. There needed to be a better reason for so many people to go under the knife. A protracted guerrilla war with lots of victims of car bombs and landmines, or an outbreak of a new form of Polio would of been a more convincing scenario to build off of Vs simply peoples desire to ‘keep up with the Joneses’. There’s a big difference between getting a nose job, boob job, lazer eye surgery Vs having your legs removed.

However at the end of the day it’s a Sci-Fi story. It’s going to be about a ‘what if?’ world state, so barrelling down on the feasibility is like questioning how Dragons breathe fire in Skyrim. You just have to roll with it, and focus on the internal logic of the premise. Within itself I don’t think DX:HR really falls down that much save towards the end, when you hit the choices.


The characters, oh my the characters. The voice acting was great (especially Sarif's) but unfortunately the characters were mere caricatures. There was no real depth to their motivations, no real emotion was conveyed. With a better story and better writing, Sarif, Taggart and Darrow could have been fantastic characters, with real emotions, real motivations and offering the player three viewpoints with which to view and play the game.

You’re straying back into generalizations here, but the crux of the matter is that the reason you’re not convinced is because you’re not prepared to accept the overall premise. If you’re not prepared to suspend disbelief then nothing the developers do is going to sell the game to you in terms of narrative.


To me, good stealth goes hand in hand with good level design and requires offering the player a multitude of ways to tackle each and every objective. It isn't having a linear path (look left for vent to bypass shooting) that takes all the skill and choices out of stealth by allowing you to bypass confrontation - which is what HR does. Stealth is tacked on because the levels are designed to be linear with only one way to pass through them, so to add 'stealth' gameplay that added a second equally as linear way to pass through them although this time you aren't seen.

The distinction between DX:HR and Thief though is that Thief is purely a stealther, where as in DX:HR (and DX for that matter) stealth is merely an option as a means to an end (open combat in Thief is practically suicide). So it’s natural that Thief would offer up several ways to use stealth to provide variety within itself, where as over emphasis on Stealth in DX would detract from the broader game play options.


The level design really showed the workings underneath when you realize that a lot of the apartment buildings you wander through or past do not have ground floors, and indeed do not and cannot have main entrances based on how the neighborhood is laid out. Yet, the apartments are clearly occupied. Does everybody use the fire escape?

I thought most of the environments held up fairly well, but I was disappointed in the actual hubs in terms of the lack of ambient activity. DX:HR wasn’t quite as terminal as DX:IW was in that respect with it’s empty coffee shops, but simple things like the same couple still outside the Hive nightclub for instance hours after I’d encountered them the first time was disappointing. The static nature of many things detracted from the immersion I felt the developers were aiming for.

Certainly agreed about lack of thought put into the apartments though. Things like discovering that the Factory supervisors flat had no windows at all was a prime example of poor design decisions undermining immersion.

[Nalano]

The writers hung the idea of the game around this notion of cybernetics dominating society, but they never really convince with the argument that so many people would willingly undertake the surgery, especially given that a lot of the cybernetics available were quite crude. There needed to be a better reason for so many people to go under the knife. A protracted guerrilla war with lots of victims of car bombs and landmines, or an outbreak of a new form of Polio would of been a more convincing scenario to build off of Vs simply peoples desire to ‘keep up with the Joneses’. There’s a big difference between getting a nose job, boob job, lazer eye surgery Vs having your legs removed.

And to think you all laughed at me when I made the same argument (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/21/deus-ex-live-action-trailer/#comment-746722) on the main page before the game came out!

I still think GitS did it better: The people with replaced limbs tended to be soldiers, government agents, corporate enforcers, trauma patients or crazy rich guys (and Motoko was at least three of those), and further, we're talking Japan here, with a far more universal healthcare system in place.


However at the end of the day it’s a Sci-Fi story. It’s going to be about a ‘what if?’ world state, so barrelling down on the feasibility is like questioning how Dragons breathe fire in Skyrim. You just have to roll with it, and focus on the internal logic of the premise. Within itself I don’t think DX:HR really falls down that much save towards the end, when you hit the choices.

No. Just no.

Science fiction and fantasy are two separate genres. If I wanted a modern fantasy game, there's still Vampire: The Masquerade.

Or, to put it another way, the "what if?" is "what if cybernetics were possible on a mass scale," and the game would then be about the ways and methods it enters society, but that only works if people and institutions work the way they do in real life. However, in DXHR, the "what if?" is "what if corporations/consumers were stupid enough to destroy the world economy in a way quite literally fatal to themselves?" and you thus have a second-order idiot plot.

[Vicious]

I think you’ll find people here are more appreciative of a thought out opinion than elsewhere tbh.The only other gaming forum I post on is QT3 and tbh, I don't think you get much better than that when it comes to thought out opinions being highly regarded. Nonetheless, it's still my experience :p




I think there’s big question marks over the storyline in DX:HR however I’d say that have more to do with the premise than the telling. I’m also not entirely sure that the actual plot of DX is as fondly remembered Vs the playability of DX as you seem to hold. Personally I recall the game ended in three choices, but in all honesty I couldn’t now tell you what each of them are. Also Aliens, Area 51, Majestic 12...it all seemed good at the time (X-files was still on), but it’s kind of risible now.
I think it's both the premise and the telling. The premise isn't particularly compelling (although it easily could have been), and the storytelling itself is disjointed and doesn't form any sort of coherent narrative. It jumps from "saving ex girlfriend who i may still have feelings for" to two lines of "augments MIGHT be bad" back to "saving ex gf for unknown reasons" to "Augments are the future and PROFIT! :D" back to "augments might be bad because I invented them and I have poorly explained reasons for hating them" interspersed with a little bit of "Who is Adam?" which is never properly explained.

Plenty of games/novels have a bad premise but excellent internal storytelling, and I'd prefer that to a game with an excellent premise but poor storytelling. Unfortunately, imo, HR has neither.




The writers hung the idea of the game around this notion of cybernetics dominating society, but they never really convince with the argument that so many people would willingly undertake the surgery, especially given that a lot of the cybernetics available were quite crude. There needed to be a better reason for so many people to go under the knife. A protracted guerrilla war with lots of victims of car bombs and landmines, or an outbreak of a new form of Polio would of been a more convincing scenario to build off of Vs simply peoples desire to ‘keep up with the Joneses’. There’s a big difference between getting a nose job, boob job, lazer eye surgery Vs having your legs removed.
I agree. I also believe they never successfully argued that augments were bad either. Both in people becoming addicts to the drug(what was it called?) and in creating a segment of society that was physically and to some extent mentally superior to the rest. Neither was really fleshed out or explored and would have given excellent motive to both the PC's actions and the main antagonists.


However at the end of the day it’s a Sci-Fi story. It’s going to be about a ‘what if?’ world state, so barrelling down on the feasibility is like questioning how Dragons breathe fire in Skyrim. You just have to roll with it, and focus on the internal logic of the premise. Within itself I don’t think DX:HR really falls down that much save towards the end, when you hit the choices.
I'm a huge sci-fi and fantasy fan and the fact that I have over a thousand sci-fi/fantasy books attests to the fact that I can accept what if's, poor premise and a lack of feasibility :p




You’re straying back into generalizations here, but the crux of the matter is that the reason you’re not convinced is because you’re not prepared to accept the overall premise. If you’re not prepared to suspend disbelief then nothing the developers do is going to sell the game to you in terms of narrative.
How is that the crux of the matter? Any kind of game requires you to suspend disbelief, even CoD. In my opinion, the game never offered motive or emotions for the characters to act the ways they did. That has nothing to do with disbelief or premise, it has to do with the internal storytelling poorly elaborating on why characters act the way they do and say the things they say.




The distinction between DX:HR and Thief though is that Thief is purely a stealther, where as in DX:HR (and DX for that matter) stealth is merely an option as a means to an end (open combat in Thief is practically suicide). So it’s natural that Thief would offer up several ways to use stealth to provide variety within itself, where as over emphasis on Stealth in DX would detract from the broader game play options.
Firstly, DX levels had far more in common with Thief levels than they do with HR levels. Secondly, how does an over emphasis on stealth(which in this case means designing more open levels with more ways of tackling each level both as a stealth and as a combat character) detract from the broader game play options? How does moving from linear level design to non linear level design in any possibly way detract from game play options? HR had two game play options. Walk through that door and fight, or turn to the left and 'sneak through that vent and not fight'. Please do elaborate on how offering three, four, five, eighteen ways of getting to the end of that level rather than one - regardless of how - detracts from broader game play options.

[deano2099]

The characters, oh my the chracters. The voice acting was great (especially Sarif's) but unfortunately the characters were mere caricatures. There was no real depth to their motivations, no real emotion was conveyed. With a better story and better writing, Sarif, Taggart and Darrow could have been fantastic characters, with real emotions, real motivations and offering the player three viewpoints with which to view and play the game.

I felt that, for better or worse, they were designed this way on purpose. It's not just that those characters have muddy motivations, it's that they have none at all. That gives a certain purity to their viewpoints. Their stances are entirely philosophical and not influenced by personal and emotional issues. Sure, Taggart would likely be a more interesting character if he held the views he did because his wife had died in an horrific augmentation accident. But that would also undermine his view: "he only thinks that because of what happened to his wife". The fact that we learn so little about those characters is done on purpose, as they're meant to purely embody the views they espouse.

Similarly, the fact that all anyone in Detroit ever talks about is augmentation isn't realistic, but it isn't trying to be. It's trying to throw a whole bunch of viewpoints at you to make you think about the issue.

Oh and there is definitely at least one more mode of play other than guns-blazing and stealthily avoiding conflict. It's interesting that you say you think the game was designed around the former, because I took the third way: kill/knock-out everyone but stay unseen. So I used stealth, but not so much the vents and stuff. And I thought that the game was designed for and heavily hinting at that method of play.

[Berzee]

Basically if I have any ill-will toward this game at all, it's solely because of the "zombie" level at the end. The entire game is spent honing a very specific set of skills, and then at the end it's all "hey i bet u liek ZOMBUSS!!!!"

The rest of the game up to that point was pretty slick though in a different way entirely from old DX, I found...but I am a fickle fan and all of my good memories are now clouded with those depressing ZOMBUSS.

[Kadayi]

And to think you all laughed at me when I made the same argument (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/21/deus-ex-live-action-trailer/#comment-746722) on the main page before the game came out!

I don’t believe everyone did.


Or, to put it another way, the "what if?" is "what if cybernetics were possible on a mass scale," and the game would then be about the ways and methods it enters society, but that only works if people and institutions work the way they do in real life. However, in DXHR, the "what if?" is "what if corporations/consumers were stupid enough to destroy the world economy in a way quite literally fatal to themselves?" and you thus have a second-order idiot plot.

No. There’s whole tracts of Science Fiction writing that goes back over the last hundred years that have little if anything to do with events based on a grounded reality.


I think it's both the premise and the telling. The premise isn't particularly compelling (although it easily could have been), and the storytelling itself is disjointed and doesn't form any sort of coherent narrative. It jumps from "saving ex girlfriend who i may still have feelings for" to two lines of "augments MIGHT be bad" back to "saving ex gf for unknown reasons" to "Augments are the future and PROFIT! :D" back to "augments might be bad because I invented them and I have poorly explained reasons for hating them" interspersed with a little bit of "Who is Adam?" which is never properly explained.

Jensens personal and professional live are intertwined, so I’m failing to see the conflict tbh. I think Deano makes a good counterpoint as well: -


I felt that, for better or worse, they were designed this way on purpose. It's not just that those characters have muddy motivations, it's that they have none at all. That gives a certain purity to their viewpoints. Their stances are entirely philosophical and not influenced by personal and emotional issues. Sure, Taggart would likely be a more interesting character if he held the views he did because his wife had died in an horrific augmentation accident. But that would also undermine his view: "he only thinks that because of what happened to his wife". The fact that we learn so little about those characters is done on purpose, as they're meant to purely embody the views they espouse.

The characters are manifestations of ideals.


Firstly, DX levels had far more in common with Thief levels than they do with HR levels. Secondly, how does an over emphasis on stealth (which in this case means designing more open levels with more ways of tackling each level both as a stealth and as a combat character) detract from the broader game play options? How does moving from linear level design to non linear level design in any possibly way detract from game play options? HR had two game play options. Walk through that door and fight, or turn to the left and 'sneak through that vent and not fight'. Please do elaborate on how offering three, four, five, eighteen ways of getting to the end of that level rather than one - regardless of how - detracts from broader game play options.

Simple, you’re weighting the die of player choice towards stealth game play. If there are eight routes and six of them are stealth then the implication to the player is that stealth is the way to go. Doing anything else as a player would feel like you were short changing yourself. Democracy of choice requires a degree of balance when it comes to game play decisions.


Oh and there is definitely at least one more mode of play other than guns-blazing and stealthily avoiding conflict. It's interesting that you say you think the game was designed around the former, because I took the third way: kill/knock-out everyone but stay unseen. So I used stealth, but not so much the vents and stuff. And I thought that the game was designed for and heavily hinting at that method of play.

Also as Deano points out, there are in fact three ways to play, not two.

[Vicious]

No. There’s whole tracts of Science Fiction writing that goes back over the last hundred years that have little if anything to do with events based on a grounded reality.
I suspect you're mistaking Nalano's point. Actions within the world HR created are not logical or consistent inside that world. A sci-fi novel can be grounded in it's own reality, if the world is sufficiently fleshed out, well thought and consistent. As you'll see further on, the people behind HR claimed that they wanted HR's world to be believable and somewhat realistic.


Jensens personal and professional live are intertwined, so I’m failing to see the conflict tbh. I think Deano makes a good counterpoint as well: Where did I mention a conflict between his personal and professional life? I stated that I felt the main plot to be incoherent and disjointed.

As for Deano's point, while I respect his opinion, I disagree entirely and believe he's a victim of attribution bias. I believe the characters are empty vessels because the writers weren't all that good or weren't given the chance to be that good. That's based on the rest of the story and a lot of the script being average at best and showing very little talent or creativity. I also disagree that characters being empty of motivation gives them a purity of viewpoint, I believe the opposite. It gives them no viewpoint and just makes them puppets necessary for a thin veneer of a story to progress.


GameSpy: Why did you put in boss battles where you absolutely must kill? What happened to the "Perfect Pacifist" style of play?
Antoine Thisdale: I can't really answer that question, because I'd be giving away a few plot points. But basically, it's story-driven. That's the kind of thing that we can't really let the player decide, because then the story would just stop. It's hard to answer, because of the story.



http://ie.askmen.com/video/entertainment/1222-deus-ex-human-revolution-writer-interview-video.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_gveq71v7s


Mary DeMarle: The way that I build the story is to start with your critical-path information: What is it that the player has to know, at the bare minimum, in order to understand it. And once you've got that down, you go and you start building the rest - all those additional layers of story. And you use those different means. So, we have television news. We also have newspaper stories - and these will also refelct your actions in the game. We have what we call the "e-books," and what we call the "xp-books" - which are also "e-books" but are specifically about augmentations. By finding these, in particular, you get XP-points that you can apply to your augmentations. And then we have pocket secretaries, which are like everyone's own personal cell phones, and then we have the emails on the computers as well. We use all those things to tell the story, create the world that you're living in, add more life to that universe, and show a world that exists outside of Adam Jensen.
IG: What’s the inspiration behind Human Revolution’s narrative?
Dugas(HR Game Director): A lot of things; the advances in technology, the state of the world, human beings, etc. The themes are centered around transhumanism and on "why" people do what they do. Control is also an important aspect as well.
Watch the videos, read the Q&A's with the designers and writers. They consistently talk about creating a believable near future reality that people can relate to, building a deep multi-layer rich conspiracy and offering players choice throughout the game that has significant effects on how the game progresses. This does not seem to support deano's supposition, and it certainly doesn't appear in the game we get to play.


The characters are manifestations of ideals.
No, they're just poorly written. Even symbolic characters that are manifestations of some aspect have depth, if they're a good character.



Simple, you’re weighting the die of player choice towards stealth game play. If there are eight routes and six of them are stealth then the implication to the player is that stealth is the way to go. Who are you replying to? Certainly not me as that has zilch to do with what I said. It's also nonsensical to argue that giving players eight routes through a level instead of two is giving them less options and is somehow biasing players towards a certain playstyle. Also, just for your own information, a weighted die is one that is tampered with to deliver a certain result each time as you seem to be using the phrase completely out of context. You're also using a metaphor for a random event(using a die) to argue an opinion about a deliberate choice. The two don't have much in common.

Eight is larger than two, having eight routes to tackle a level rather than two somehow limits or detracts from options?

If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I didn't distinguish between having 20 stealth routes and 2 combat routes, or 14 and 8 etc etc because to do so is to just reproduce HR's error on a larger scale.
Give players an open level with multiple ways to tackle it(and not in the combat vs non-combat sense), and you allow players the freedom and choice to tackle both the level and every choice in it organically based on each situation/choice that faces the player. This is what Thief did, this is not what HR did.


Doing anything else as a player would feel like you were short changing yourself.
You can only choose one route, so how does more routes being stealth than combat short change yourself when you can still only choose one?


Democracy of choice requires a degree of balance when it comes to game play decisions.
Democracy of choice is a non-sequitur, certainly in this context. Are you following in HR's footsteps and trying to be profound for the sake of it now? :p




Also as Deano points out, there are in fact three ways to play, not two.
Regardless, you're still faced with same choice. Enter the door in front of you and face conflict(whether lethal or non lethal), or take the vent to your left to either bypass or initiate the conflict from the other side of the door.

[Xercies]

or 14 and 8 etc etc because to do so is to just reproduce HR's error on a larger scale.
Give players an open level with multiple ways to tackle it(and not in the combat vs non-combat sense), and you allow players the freedom and choice to tackle both the level and every choice in it organically based on each situation/choice that faces the player. This is what Thief did, this is not what HR did.


You can only choose one route, so how does more routes being stealth than combat short change yourself when you can still only choose one?

You sir are totally wrong I have to say, many times I stealthed my way in metal gear solid like, lots of times i was forced to kill my way in and there is the vents as well, and probably other ways I couldn't think of or see but probably someone has done. It really felt to me that I was going through the levels in a unique way, or a different way.

[archonsod]

But that model of thinking takes no account of new IP.

It does, but given how scarce new IP is in the first place it makes no difference.


No. There might by myriad factors why someone doesn't buy a game at launch, but if the reason they don't buy it then is purely down to a belief that it's not worth full price (maybe even based off of review/preview coverage they've seen) then they are already making value judgement's about it and setting an expectation on some some level.

Which doesn't alter whether they're predisposed to like or dislike it.



The writers hung the idea of the game around this notion of cybernetics dominating society, but they never really convince with the argument that so many people would willingly undertake the surgery, especially given that a lot of the cybernetics available were quite crude.

Most of them probably didn't. The vast majority of the mechanical Augs are the result of the military recycling program, hence why most of the people you see with limb replacements tend to be mercs or security (i.e. likely ex-military). Outside of the military it tends to be the less overt augs such as those Malik has which merely improve intelligence or specific skills that are the issue. I'm not sure how much surgery is required in those cases, my impression is it's simply a case of fitting a neural jack of some type and then modular plug ins or software can be loaded and switched around at will, in which case I think the utility would pretty much outweight the downsides. After all, once you have the implant switching between skills would presumably be as simple as installing the correct software.


in DXHR, the "what if?" is "what if corporations/consumers were stupid enough to destroy the world economy in a way quite literally fatal to themselves?" and you thus have a second-order idiot plot.

Consumers and corporations don't control the economy in Deus Ex, the Illuminati do. And they have specific goals in mind with where they're directing it.


I felt that, for better or worse, they were designed this way on purpose. It's not just that those characters have muddy motivations, it's that they have none at all. That gives a certain purity to their viewpoints.

It's fairly normal for a Deus Ex game. After all, it's hard to sell the notion of a shadowy secret war between ancient worldwide conspiracies if you have the main players announcing it to all and sundry. I don't think it's a failing - it's deliberately obscuring character motivations which keeps you paranoid in the other games. HR falls down there because there is no real effort to establish paranoia - unlike Denton for example, Jensen is not a lone wolf being hunted by his former employers and unknown enemies.

[Nalano]

I suspect you're mistaking Nalano's point. Actions within the world HR created are not logical or consistent inside that world. A sci-fi novel can be grounded in it's own reality, if the world is sufficiently fleshed out, well thought and consistent. As you'll see further on, the people behind HR claimed that they wanted HR's world to be believable and somewhat realistic.

No, I'm speaking of the division in the genre in the between hard science fiction and "science" fantasy. The difference between Asimov and Lem on one end and Lucas and Hubbard on the other. Star Wars can be and is fleshed out and (largely) internally consistent, but the world it depicts bears no resemblance to how things would actually work (stone age midgets beating a space-faring empire, elite troops firing en masse can't hit a man-sized target from ten yards, everything concerning galactic governance; Anakin isn't even recognizable as a person). Sci fi they ain't.


Illuminati

I can't even reply to that with a straight face.

[Kadayi]

Actions within the world HR created are not logical or consistent inside that world.

Can you cite some examples?


Where did I mention a conflict between his personal and professional life? I stated that I felt the main plot to be incoherent and disjointed

Over factors that are inherently intertwined. The investigation into what happened to his girlfriend is integral to the broader story line given her central role in things, as is Adams past.


As for Deano's point, while I respect his opinion, I disagree entirely and believe he's a victim of attribution bias.

In what way exactly?


I believe the characters are empty vessels because the writers weren't all that good or weren't given the chance to be that good.That's based on the rest of the story and a lot of the script being average at best and showing very little talent or creativity. I also disagree that characters being empty of motivation gives them a purity of viewpoint, I believe the opposite. It gives them no viewpoint and just makes them puppets necessary for a thin veneer of a story to progress.

So how would you have improved it?


Watch the videos, read the Q&A's with the designers and writers. They consistently talk about creating a believable near future reality that people can relate to, building a deep multi-layer rich conspiracy and offering players choice throughout the game that has significant effects on how the game progresses. This does not seem to support Deano's supposition, and it certainly doesn't appear in the game we get to play.

Perhaps in their view if you buy into the premise it holds up? Take a film like Surrogates for instance. The notion that the majority of people go about their lives vicariously using automatons is completely preposterous when you think about it logically (Why would they drive cars, and travel to the office? If they had such technology at their fingertips), but the film (and the comic it was based upon) was more interested in the idea of exploring the impact such technology would have upon peoples persona as well as the alienation that might occur.


It's also nonsensical to argue that giving players eight routes through a level instead of two is giving them less options and is somehow biasing players towards a certain playstyle.

I’m not arguing, I’m stating the obvious. From a design perspective if you want a game to be about choice in terms of game play, then you need there to be some kind of levelling in terms of those options (democracy of choice). If it’s abundantly clear to the player that there are more opportunities to employ one particular play style Vs others then invariably more players are going to choose that route. That’s not necessarily the thing you want to promote in a game that is selling itself on player choice.


Regardless, you're still faced with same choice. Enter the door in front of you and face conflict(whether lethal or non lethal), or take the vent to your left to either bypass or initiate the conflict from the other side of the door.

There are a few situations where you get railroaded in DX:HR (generally between loading levels), but by on large you’re given plenty of scope using approach in combination with your augs to navigate the space/overcome obstacles within levels as you see fit in my experience.

[deano2099]

As for Deano's point, while I respect his opinion, I disagree entirely and believe he's a victim of attribution bias. I believe the characters are empty vessels because the writers weren't all that good or weren't given the chance to be that good. That's based on the rest of the story and a lot of the script being average at best and showing very little talent or creativity. I also disagree that characters being empty of motivation gives them a purity of viewpoint, I believe the opposite. It gives them no viewpoint and just makes them puppets necessary for a thin veneer of a story to progress.


Certainly possible it was just bad writing, but it's like what was discussed about Skyrim somewhere else - that's a game that tries to do certain types of narrative somewhat half-heartedly and fails. The fact that it tries and fails is somehow worse than if it didn't try at all. HR doesn't try and give any of those main characters motivations. Or back-story. In fact, the 'relative a victim of a horrid augmentation-related thing' is actually used for Taggart's assistant, to demonstrate why he actually goes too far. It's not that Taggart, Sarif and Darrow (to a lesser extent) have badly written back-stories. They don't have any at all. Neither does Adam outside of backstory that directly links to augmentation.

Now I'll admit I'm not 100% sure this was a wise choice. I think stronger characters and certainly a stronger main storyline could have made a better game. But I think it was a conscious choice. I also think the 'Push button to ending' fitted in with this too. There's a whole bunch of other evidence in the game for it that I covered in ridiculous depth here: http://gaming.thedigitalfix.com/content/id/454/human-revolutiongame-that-asksquestion.html

[Kadayi]

HR doesn't try and give any of those main characters motivations. Or back-story. In fact, the 'relative a victim of a horrid augmentation-related thing' is actually used for Taggart's assistant, to demonstrate why he actually goes too far. It's not that Taggart, Sarif and Darrow (to a lesser extent) have badly written back-stories. They don't have any at all. Neither does Adam outside of backstory that directly links to augmentation.

Games are an interactive medium so to demand a delivered narrative (as vicious seems to be) is kind of counter productive tbh. There's actually quite a lot of narrative information to be found in DX:HR that gives insight into the various NPCs/organisations as well as their motivations, it's just to be found in the form of emails & notes found throughout the levels and the onus is on you the player to make sense of it. This idea that every NPC should monologue you to death is kind of antiquated and redundant given the distinct nature of the medium Vs that of Film/Television and literature.

[Xercies]

Games are an interactive medium so to demand a delivered narrative (as vicious seems to be) is kind of counter productive tbh. There's actually quite a lot of narrative information to be found in DX:HR that gives insight into the various NPCs/organisations as well as their motivations, it's just to be found in the form of emails & notes

Yes exactly a lot of the writing is not just in what the characters say, its also in the world and that includes the e-books. A good example, one employee has a copy of one of those erotic books. That says a lot about his character then if he actually said it. and this kind of thing is throughout DXHR, you just got to look for it if your that way inclined. You will find that a lot of the people do have backstories and personality and the like.